Re: MD: Napster article
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > David (who agrees with Larry about beer ... it looks like urine, it smells > like urine, and it probably tastes like urine, and every beer drinker to > whom I've said that has responded, "It doesn't taste like urine"; how do > they know?) Obviously, David has never drinked beer me, myself and I on the other hand are very found of beer. There are loads of different beers, all with a different taste. Being born in Maastricht (The Netherlands), having 4 different beer brewers within a range of 20km (Ridder, Brand, Gulpener and Leeuw) and living in one of the city's of the Netherlands with the highest concentration of pubs per inhabitant, all added to this There are beers that you drink warm, but most of the beers you should drink cold. However, if you drink a beer a beer at room-temperature Well, I would say that it tast likely like p*ss (urine). Cheers, Ralph -> Making his off-topic contribution to this mailing-list. -- === Ralph SmeetsFunctional Verification Centre Of Competence - CMG Voice: (+33) (0)4 76 58 44 46 STMicroelectronics Fax:(+33) (0)4 76 58 40 11 5, chem de la Dhuy Mobile: (+33) (0)6 82 66 62 70 38240 MEYLAN E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] FRANCE === "For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the powers of our imagination: We learned to talk." -- Stephen Hawking, later used by Pink Floyd -- === - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 12:35:39 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > To a certain degree, copyright still applys. However domestic use is > > considered "time-shifting" - it would almost certainly be a different matter > > should you attempt (and be noticed) to be selling, distributing, or > > otherwise broadcasting such recordings. > > Agreed again. But the law does allow you to make cassettes for you own personal > use. AIUI "time-shifting" of broadcast material is permitted. And it appears not to be a *criminal* activity to record something you already have a legitimate copy of. > Supposedly there is a surcharge added to blank tape to cover copyright > payments. So is the government and recording industry saying, it's OK to copy > things as long as the quality is not so good? Digital is out of the question. > The quality of your copy will be to high? Most media that I know of, allows (at least be merit of it's SCMS configuration) to make a first generation copy. > > The existence of a new technology, and a general desire by many to > > capitalise, and get something that's not theirs', for free, should not > > overwrite the rights of those that produce copyrighted material. > > How does cassette recording from the radio differ from copying it to an MD? How does it in practice? You can still copy from the radio to MD - I suspect the legal situation is still the same - the premise being "time-shifting". > The > radio station pays a royalty each time they play a song. On the other hand > adding a surcharge to a blank MD is not fair to the person who is recording > his/her own original material. I guess they apply it on the balance of probabliities. > Nor is stopping the artist from allowing him/her from making as may digital > copies of his/her own material as they feel like. Yet that is the situation at > present. A digital recording from an analogue source should still allow you to make another copy, should it not? And SCMS strippers and more commercial equipment would allow anyway. Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily supporting these sort of restrictions, just being pragmatic. Cheers Neil ___ Say Bye to Slow Internet! http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
> You don't buy beer, you just rent it. > RENT IT!!! Hell I'd die of thirst before I'd drink it. Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
"David W. Tamkin" wrote: > > > David (who agrees with Larry about beer ... it looks like urine, it smells > like urine, and it probably tastes like urine, and every beer drinker to > whom I've said that has responded, "It doesn't taste like urine"; how do > they know?) You don't buy beer, you just rent it. -- Jim Coon Not just another pretty mandolin picker. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
Interesting discussion. There's something to be said in all this about individual beliefs and values. Everyone has them, but not everyone's includes healthy doses of understanding, compassion and the ability to suspend judgement. Consider for a moment the driving force behind the need to acquire financial sustenance and spiritual (artistic) sustenance? Many combine the financial with the spiritual (possibly 'tis about self-worth). So when we start talk about a person's worth exactly what standards do we base that on? Comparing the level of input and output behind a person's chosen method of existence and/or expression and then trying to determine what that person deserves is something we humans do when we're feeling: unworthy, undercatered for, lacking, fearful, suspicious... I play music and got my MD to have fun, and share fun around a bit. I also work for money to provide for myself and family. Sometimes it's a struggle because of my attitude and sometimes it's because the world I live in doesn't have enough compassion to share. What about some free dentistry and free artistic expression - I believe it helps encourage equality. free advice ;-) Kerry. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
"David W. Tamkin" wrote: > Agreed. The average downloader is more likely thinking, "Hey, I'm getting > this stuff for free. Isn't that great?" To think "I'm stealing this stuff" > would require considering the situation further and thinking about its having > an owner and whether its free availability was the owner's idea or someone > else's. But if there were a small fee involved, I think that would not stop many people from using the service. Say a nickel for each successful download of a complete song. Kids spend $12 to $17 dollars on a CD. At 5 cents a song that could by 240 to 340 songs. At 10 songs per CD that's 24 to 34 CDs. But you get the songs that you want. Not just like buying one CD to get one song you like, which is often the case. This could bring up a whole new issue of "padding" CDs with songs just to justify charging $17 for a CD. I'm not getting into that. If the quality of MP3's is not acceptable to you (I mean "you" in general, not David) then you aren't going to be interested in downloading MP3s in the first place. > Now MP3.com has been hit with a big penalty judgment; we'll see where that > goes. I doubt that the supreme court will be will to take this one. If it doesn't have to with abortion, they usually don't seem interested . > David (who agrees with Larry about beer ... it looks like urine, it smells > like urine, and it probably tastes like urine, and every beer drinker to > whom I've said that has responded, "It doesn't taste like urine"; how do David It's like you went inside my head. Book the words out of my mouth and typed them! Have a great weekend, Larry > > they know?) > - > To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word > "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
Larry wrote, | I don't think that they average person downloading stuff is thinking to | him/herself, "Hey I'm stealing this stuff and getting way with it. Isn't | that great?" Agreed. The average downloader is more likely thinking, "Hey, I'm getting this stuff for free. Isn't that great?" To think "I'm stealing this stuff" would require considering the situation further and thinking about its having an owner and whether its free availability was the owner's idea or someone else's. Now MP3.com has been hit with a big penalty judgment; we'll see where that goes. David (who agrees with Larry about beer ... it looks like urine, it smells like urine, and it probably tastes like urine, and every beer drinker to whom I've said that has responded, "It doesn't taste like urine"; how do they know?) - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === > I just don't see how you can differentiate like this, with sport and art - > surely there are clear analogies. > > If the human species enjoys both sporting pursuits, and artistic ones - how > can one be something trivial, and one not? > > Why, necessarily does your like, or dislike of something, necessarily equate > to your perception of the work ethic required to succeed in it? > I just find it paradoxical that you could believe that sportsmen play, > whilst artist work. > Paradox?? Doesn't that mean 2 doctors. > > > I realize that I'm the odd man out here. End of story. > > I couldn't possibly comment! ;-) You'd have to get inside my head to do that. "Being Larry Sherry" would make a boring movie. > Cheers > > Neil > > ___ > Say Bye to Slow Internet! > http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html > > - > To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word > "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === > Surely that fee should be for anything copyrighted, that the copyright owner > wishes to charge for. Individual, or greater perception of "quality" is > subjective anyway - and it's not anyone else's call. You don't have any > inalienable rights to other peoples' copyrighted material - if you don't > like the price for it, then don't get it. Agreed. > > > I stand by that position. I don't think that they average person > downloading stuff is > > thinking to him/herself, "Hey I'm stealing this stuff and getting way > with it. Isn't > > that great?" > > Different people have differing opinions of their anecdotal evidence on > this. > > Regardless of the intent, in general, people are still obtaining copyright > material, against (I would imagine) the terms to which such copyright > material is bound. > > > We have a system in place for recording off of TV and radio. > > To a certain degree, copyright still applys. However domestic use is > considered "time-shifting" - it would almost certainly be a different matter > should you attempt (and be noticed) to be selling, distributing, or > otherwise broadcasting such recordings. Agreed again. But the law does allow you to make cassettes for you own personal use. Supposedly there is a surcharge added to blank tape to cover copyright payments. So is the government and recording industry saying, it's OK to copy things as long as the quality is not so good? Digital is out of the question. The quality of your copy will be to high? > > Now we have a new > > technology and we need a way to incorporate it into the system. > > The existence of a new technology, and a general desire by many to > capitalise, and get something that's not theirs', for free, should not > overwrite the rights of those that produce copyrighted material. How does cassette recording from the radio differ from copying it to an MD? The radio station pays a royalty each time they play a song. On the other hand adding a surcharge to a blank MD is not fair to the person who is recording his/her own original material. Nor is stopping the artist from allowing him/her from making as may digital copies of his/her own material as they feel like. Yet that is the situation at present. > > Regards (and still friends I hope), > > Oh of course. Healthy debate is not something I equate to dislike. If > everybody agreed it'd be a damned boring world (IMHO of course!). > Agreed again. Have a great weekend, Larry > > Neil > > ___ > Say Bye to Slow Internet! > http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html > > - > To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word > "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 02:38:52 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > You can get me to support the arts and artists all the way, but when it > comes sports, I stand my ground. They are still just playing!!! I just don't see how you can differentiate like this, with sport and art - surely there are clear analogies. If the human species enjoys both sporting pursuits, and artistic ones - how can one be something trivial, and one not? > I don't > enjoy athletics and would never equate art with athletics. Why, necessarily does your like, or dislike of something, necessarily equate to your perception of the work ethic required to succeed in it? > OK so I'm "different" then other people. Men are supposed to enjoy sports. > Men are supposed to love beer. I don't enjoy sports and I cant even stand > the smell of beer, let alone the taste. I just find it paradoxical that you could believe that sportsmen play, whilst artist work. > I realize that I'm the odd man out here. End of story. I couldn't possibly comment! ;-) Cheers Neil ___ Say Bye to Slow Internet! http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 20:18:44 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > "J. Coon" wrote: > > OK. I'm going to try and end this discussion now. I have said all along that there > should be a royalty fee paid to download "quality" MP3s from the net. Surely that fee should be for anything copyrighted, that the copyright owner wishes to charge for. Individual, or greater perception of "quality" is subjective anyway - and it's not anyone else's call. You don't have any inalienable rights to other peoples' copyrighted material - if you don't like the price for it, then don't get it. > I stand by that position. I don't think that they average person downloading stuff is > thinking to him/herself, "Hey I'm stealing this stuff and getting way with it. Isn't > that great?" Different people have differing opinions of their anecdotal evidence on this. Regardless of the intent, in general, people are still obtaining copyright material, against (I would imagine) the terms to which such copyright material is bound. > We have a system in place for recording off of TV and radio. To a certain degree, copyright still applys. However domestic use is considered "time-shifting" - it would almost certainly be a different matter should you attempt (and be noticed) to be selling, distributing, or otherwise broadcasting such recordings. > Now we have a new > technology and we need a way to incorporate it into the system. The existence of a new technology, and a general desire by many to capitalise, and get something that's not theirs', for free, should not overwrite the rights of those that produce copyrighted material. > Regards (and still friends I hope), Oh of course. Healthy debate is not something I equate to dislike. If everybody agreed it'd be a damned boring world (IMHO of course!). Neil ___ Say Bye to Slow Internet! http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
> Many athletes work 10-12 hours > a day at their profession. Sure some days they don't, but I think to say > that "most athletes do not have to work that hard" shows a profound > misunderstanding about what "most athletes" actually have to do to be > successful. Most professional athletes have been working very hard since > they were young children in order to get where they are. They certainly > have to work just as hard as any artist. And remember that athletes > careers usually end about 30 or 40 years earlier than artists ;-) Dan, You can get me to support the arts and artists all the way, but when it comes sports, I stand my ground. They are still just playing!!! I don't enjoy athletics and would never equate art with athletics. OK so I'm "different" then other people. Men are supposed to enjoy sports. Men are supposed to love beer. I don't enjoy sports and I cant even stand the smell of beer, let alone the taste. I realize that I'm the odd man out here. End of story. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
las wrote: > The dentist is going to have a currette. Well, I was hoping to curette before the dentist has to curette. The only problem at these music festivals is I am camping, and hot water is a luxury. > PS. That 15 dollars off on $25.00 is on the up and up. $14 (including > shipping!) for 10 eighty minute blanks, plus one 74 is a great deal in my > opinion (you are not limited to what I bought, it's simply $15 off $25 and > no shipping on anything you buy. Not a bad deal, what was that web site again? Jim Coon Not just another pretty mandolin picker. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
> No problem here, some of my best friends are dentists, my nephew just > got started in his practice, and I'll probably have to go to one next > week. Bit down on a potato chip wrong and it went between the gum and > my front tooth. Been sore and swollen ever since. Lots of brushing and > hot washes seem to be helping a bit. > If it isn't better when I get back from a music festival this weekend, > I'll have to make an appointment. damn. > > Sounds like you may still have a piece stuck up there. No big deal. If > that's the case, you will feel better in a day or less after the piece > has been removed. If it's up there enough, you will never get it out with > a tooth brush. The dentist is going to have a currette. Regards, Larry PS. That 15 dollars off on $25.00 is on the up and up. $14 (including shipping!) for 10 eighty minute blanks, plus one 74 is a great deal in my opinion (you are not limited to what I bought, it's simply $15 off $25 and no shipping on anything you buy. With deals like this, I always feel that it is best to try as stay as close to the $25 as possible-that way you are getting the largest % off) And Peter get them out FAST. This isn't an add for him, it's just a way to keep my emails on the MD topic. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
las <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Most athletes do not have to work that hard to accomplish what they >do. They are simply using God given gifts that come naturally to >them. I feel much differently about artists of any kind. There are less than 400 NBA basketball players in the entire world. Each *year* a few hundred Division I college basketball starters graduate, plus hundreds or thousands of players elsewhere in the world who want to play in the NBA. There are few professions in this country with as much competition for so few spots, and few where the competition is so constant (i.e., your job is never "secure" -- you are always one coach's decision from being cut). There are a few very gifted superstars (maybe 30 or 40 players) who don't have to worry about this pressure, but even they worked hard to get where they are (Michael Jordan became the best player because he worked hard at becoming the best player). For the others, it's a 365-days-a-year effort to keep in unbelievable shape, improve their game, learn playbooks, etc. Many athletes work 10-12 hours a day at their profession. Sure some days they don't, but I think to say that "most athletes do not have to work that hard" shows a profound misunderstanding about what "most athletes" actually have to do to be successful. Most professional athletes have been working very hard since they were young children in order to get where they are. They certainly have to work just as hard as any artist. And remember that athletes careers usually end about 30 or 40 years earlier than artists ;-) - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
"J. Coon" wrote: > > No problem here, some of my best friends are dentists, my nephew just > got started in his practice, and I'll probably have to go to one next > week. Bit down on a potato chip wrong and it went between the gum and > my front tooth. Been sore and swollen ever since. Lots of brushing and > hot washes seem to be helping a bit. > If it isn't better when I get back from a music festival this weekend, > I'll have to make an appointment. damn. Glad you cleared that up. Last thing we need on this list is an anti-dentite. ;) Shawn 1stUp.com - Free the Web Get your free Internet access at http://www.1stUp.com - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
las wrote: > > " > Regards (and still friends I hope), > Larry No problem here, some of my best friends are dentists, my nephew just got started in his practice, and I'll probably have to go to one next week. Bit down on a potato chip wrong and it went between the gum and my front tooth. Been sore and swollen ever since. Lots of brushing and hot washes seem to be helping a bit. If it isn't better when I get back from a music festival this weekend, I'll have to make an appointment. damn. -- Jim Coon Not just another pretty mandolin picker. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
"J. Coon" wrote: OK. I'm going to try and end this discussion now. I have said all along that there should be a royalty fee paid to download "quality" MP3s from the net. I stand by that position. I don't think that they average person downloading stuff is thinking to him/herself, "Hey I'm stealing this stuff and getting way with it. Isn't that great?" We have a system in place for recording off of TV and radio. Now we have a new technology and we need a way to incorporate it into the system. Regards (and still friends I hope), Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
I wouldn't want to stand too close to his mouth when it is opened!! Rodney Peterson wrote: > If the guy hasn't seen a dentist in nine years, I doubt your suggestion > of finding a new one isn't going to mean much. I'm guessing oral hygeine > is quite low on his priority list. > - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
> Do you mean if everybody with artistic creativity, or those that express > themselves artisticly, suddenly disappeared? Or all artistic content and / > or stimulus suddenly disappeared? No! certainly not all artistic content. When you get down to things that basic, art is like food (at least that's my opinion). > > I suspect the lack of creative culture and stimulus may have reasonably > serious psychological affects on the rest of the world. No doubt. I fully agree. But I'm not suggesting that. I'm talking about situations were it is no longer about the art, but about the money. > If there were no more dentists, it wouldn't take long before > > people were actually dying from diseases of the mouth!!! > > Perhaps given how society and modern life has developed. But go back a few > hundred years, and there were no dentists - and probably far less dietary > requirements, almost certainly some degree of poorer quality of life, or > endurance / seriousness of certain conditions. People did die from dental disease in ancient times. There are situations that exist today where people have died as a result of failing to seek treatment. This is especially true of people with certain heart disorders. People die today from bacterial endocarditis. An infection in the heart cause by bacteria that enter the blood stream from you "periodontium" (gums). > Art (in various forms, or guises) has been a pretty much fundamental aspect > of human evolvement. Even caveman drew pictures on cave walls. Without this > sort of outlet in human nature, who's to say what the effects on the > evolution of the humman species would have been. Again, no disagreement. > > Suppose everyone in the > > group Metallash!t were to die tomorrow? How many people would die as a > result. > > Perhaps a relatively small number of obsessed fans! ;-) Yeah, but the fans that they are suing (can you believe that!!! a group actually suing the very people that made them what they are and rich too) would be much better off with them dead. All the stress of a law suit would be lifted. > > The problem you have is that you are equating "artist" with necessity. > > To a certain degree, I believe the artistic nature in humans, has been > rather key to the development and evolution of us as a species - I suppose > you could extrapolate that to some degree of necessity. > > > I could > > have been a starving artist. I was in a band for years while I was going > to > > school. If we had what it took and or luck, then maybe I'd be a rich > over paid > > rock star today instead of a dentist. > > Perhaps you wouldn't whine so much about overpayed groups, then ;-) (Just > havin' a bit of a joke with ya!) I'm sure that I wouldn't be whining at all. I'd be laughing all the way to the bank. But that doesn't mean that I would be right. > > Art is very important. Don't get me wrong. But it is not essential for > life. > > Hmm..., I'm not sure we would have evolved to our present state, without the > traits and expression that "art" tends to get expressed in. > There is no doubt that things would be a lot different. I'd say a lack of art would have affected our development adversely. But we could have survived. The Nazis sat around listening to the classics while they sent millions of innocent people to the gas chambers. Art certainly didn't make them better people. > > This world would be a terrible place if it were not for music, theater, > paintings, > > graphics etc. But it isn't oxygen. > > Neither is dentistry, to be fair. A few hundred years back, humans still > existed without quality dental care. True enough, perhaps they had > considerably less need, and perhaps some died and suffered - but humans > still survived. With our present diet I'm not sure that as many people would have survived if they ate the crap we ate to day. Also, I don't think a life expectancy of 20, partially caused by among other medical needs, lack of dental care, is much of a life. > > If we had to we could survive. > > That could apply to a whole range of things, and perhaps we would evolve - > but both hypothetical occurences would have reasonable impact on human > development, in my opinion. > > > But art is not like becoming a plumber. It does not offer any > guaranties of an > > income. > > Neither does being a plumber. You still have to attract buyers of your > service, somehow. I will concede there may be a certain degree of higher > likelihood of success as a plumber, though. Have you ever tried to get a plumber when you need one. Good plumbers are in demand and have a million times better chance of finding work then an artist. > > > > Lets take the relatively small number artists that are very successful. > We have to > > be talking about billions and billions of dollars a year in total income > (from > > painters, directors, actors, singers, musicians, etc.!! Now lets > eliminate all of > > the people that call thems
Re: MD: Napster article
las wrote: > > > > > > > Do dentists deserve being paid to hurt people? There are a lot more > > starving artists out there than there are starving dentists. > > > > The above statement has got to be the one of the stupidest that I have ever heard. > I'm very disappointed that an intelligent person like you would make such a > statement. > Some how I knew that would get your attention. I think we are taking up too much "bandwidth" with this discussion. The bottom line is dentists sell their services and expect to be compensated. They may or may not enjoy their work. Artists, do escentially the same. Some make it big, some don't. There are a lot fewer that make the big bucks than the ones that do. Then there is the cost of producing the product. Someone has to pay for that. There is the cost of the bus and transportation for the band, sound equipment etc. The band members have to eat and be paid. It isn't all fun and games like you imply. -- Jim Coon Not just another pretty mandolin picker. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
If the guy hasn't seen a dentist in nine years, I doubt your suggestion of finding a new one isn't going to mean much. I'm guessing oral hygeine is quite low on his priority list. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 11:20:45 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Fifth, what does it take to be an "artist"? The reason that there are so many > starving artists is because there are so many people who consider themselves > "artists"!!! What qualifications does it take to be an artist How many > years do you have to go to school to qualify to be an "artist"? What examinations > and how many does it take to be an artist? How do you pay for the cost of all of > that school and setting up a practice? You can buy one of the best guitars you can > find and a great amp to go along with it and still not approach $10,000. > > Finally, if every "artist" alive today dropped off of the face of the earth, what > would be the result?? Do you mean if everybody with artistic creativity, or those that express themselves artisticly, suddenly disappeared? Or all artistic content and / or stimulus suddenly disappeared? I suspect the lack of creative culture and stimulus may have reasonably serious psychological affects on the rest of the world. > If there were no more dentists, it wouldn't take long before > people were actually dying from diseases of the mouth!!! Perhaps given how society and modern life has developed. But go back a few hundred years, and there were no dentists - and probably far less dietary requirements, almost certainly some degree of poorer quality of life, or endurance / seriousness of certain conditions. Art (in various forms, or guises) has been a pretty much fundamental aspect of human evolvement. Even caveman drew pictures on cave walls. Without this sort of outlet in human nature, who's to say what the effects on the evolution of the humman species would have been. > Suppose everyone in the > group Metallash!t were to die tomorrow? How many people would die as a result. Perhaps a relatively small number of obsessed fans! ;-) > The problem you have is that you are equating "artist" with necessity. To a certain degree, I believe the artistic nature in humans, has been rather key to the development and evolution of us as a species - I suppose you could extrapolate that to some degree of necessity. > I could > have been a starving artist. I was in a band for years while I was going to > school. If we had what it took and or luck, then maybe I'd be a rich over paid > rock star today instead of a dentist. Perhaps you wouldn't whine so much about overpayed groups, then ;-) (Just havin' a bit of a joke with ya!) > Art is very important. Don't get me wrong. But it is not essential for life. Hmm..., I'm not sure we would have evolved to our present state, without the traits and expression that "art" tends to get expressed in. > This world would be a terrible place if it were not for music, theater, paintings, > graphics etc. But it isn't oxygen. Neither is dentistry, to be fair. A few hundred years back, humans still existed without quality dental care. True enough, perhaps they had considerably less need, and perhaps some died and suffered - but humans still survived. > If we had to we could survive. That could apply to a whole range of things, and perhaps we would evolve - but both hypothetical occurences would have reasonable impact on human development, in my opinion. > But art is not like becoming a plumber. It does not offer any guaranties of an > income. Neither does being a plumber. You still have to attract buyers of your service, somehow. I will concede there may be a certain degree of higher likelihood of success as a plumber, though. > Lets take the relatively small number artists that are very successful. We have to > be talking about billions and billions of dollars a year in total income (from > painters, directors, actors, singers, musicians, etc.!! Now lets eliminate all of > the people that call themselves "artists", but really do not have talent by the > standards of our society. Is that a call that the "masses" should be able to make? Taking out resentment, or jealousy, the argument appears to be that you don't think some people deserve the money they get - an entirely subjective argument. > If you take what's left and divided the billions and billions of dollars between > all of them. There would be NO starving artists!! And get rid of greed in human nature. There are always gonna be the "haves" and the "have nots". And probably the "haves" are not gonna want to give up what they've got, and endeavour to continuely increase what they "have". And perhaps there are always gonna be the "have nots" that believe they (or some other worthy group) should have what the "haves" have (if you pardon the aliteration!) - doesn't necessarily mean this is anything but a subjective argument, though. And consider for a second the psychological (and I mean the fundamental) reasons that provoke such thoughts. > Most importantly, you'd better find yourself a new dentist. Perhaps this is why you're not a mega successful rock s
Re: MD: Napster article
> > > Do dentists deserve being paid to hurt people? There are a lot more > starving artists out there than there are starving dentists. > The above statement has got to be the one of the stupidest that I have ever heard. I'm very disappointed that an intelligent person like you would make such a statement. First of all, if you are still being "hurt" by your dentist, either you haven't been to the dentist in a long time or you should find a new one. Second, Do you realize how many people come to me in severe pain each week and leave with the pain gone?? Third, dentists have one of the highest suicide rates of any profession. The stress is of the job is that high. Fourth, there are many dentists having financial problems. Fifth, what does it take to be an "artist"? The reason that there are so many starving artists is because there are so many people who consider themselves "artists"!!! What qualifications does it take to be an artist How many years do you have to go to school to qualify to be an "artist"? What examinations and how many does it take to be an artist? How do you pay for the cost of all of that school and setting up a practice? You can buy one of the best guitars you can find and a great amp to go along with it and still not approach $10,000. Finally, if every "artist" alive today dropped off of the face of the earth, what would be the result?? If there were no more dentists, it wouldn't take long before people were actually dying from diseases of the mouth!!! And that doesn't begin to mention all of the pain and suffering. Have you ever had a tooth ache? The only reason it doesn't happen much now, is because of dentists. Get an abcessed maxillary (upper) molar and let it keep swelling. In many cases the infection would spread to the brain!!! Good bye!! Suppose everyone in the group Metallash!t were to die tomorrow? How many people would die as a result. The problem you have is that you are equating "artist" with necessity. I could have been a starving artist. I was in a band for years while I was going to school. If we had what it took and or luck, then maybe I'd be a rich over paid rock star today instead of a dentist. Art is very important. Don't get me wrong. But it is not essential for life. This world would be a terrible place if it were not for music, theater, paintings, graphics etc. But it isn't oxygen. If we had to we could survive. The most important point is that, there are no specific qualifications to qualify as an artist. Eliminate all of the people that think they are artists, but the public doesn't and suddenly the number of "starving artists" begins to drop rapidly!!! Art is something that in addition innate talents, you have to "feel". Making money at is is something that other people have to feel is worth paying for. If you are fortunate to make money at art that's great. But art is not like becoming a plumber. It does not offer any guaranties of an income. Lets take the relatively small number artists that are very successful. We have to be talking about billions and billions of dollars a year in total income (from painters, directors, actors, singers, musicians, etc.!! Now lets eliminate all of the people that call themselves "artists", but really do not have talent by the standards of our society. If you take what's left and divided the billions and billions of dollars between all of them. There would be NO starving artists!! Most importantly, you'd better find yourself a new dentist. Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
las wrote: > Dan, if I gave the impression that artists should not be paid for their work, > that is not what I meant to say. But do artists deserve the payments that > they receive Do dentists deserve being paid to hurt people? There are a lot more starving artists out there than there are starving dentists. -- Jim Coon Not just another pretty mandolin picker. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
las wrote: > Can we really call the Spice girls "Artists"??? I won't waste an MD on > them. Hell, I'd give 'em an MD to spend the night with me. -- Jim Coon Not just another pretty mandolin picker. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 01:34:22 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Larry, I completely agree with most of what you wrote about valuable > > professions not being paid what they're actually worth. > > Dan, if I gave the impression that artists should not be paid for their work, > that is not what I meant to say. But do artists deserve the payments that > they receive If people are prepared to pay for something the artist have produced or created, then emphatically - yes. > while our children are getting inferior education's because we > will pay Metalash!t millions of dollars a year We don't, directly. We choose, or choose not to buy their product. As to what *they* get paid, is it any of our damn business? If we want their product - then we can expect to pay the price that they are prepared to sell it for. > and pay a great teacher $30 > thousand if they are lucky? I understand your indignance - but people (in gneneral) *choose* to become teachers. They could equally choose to become lawyers, stockbrokers, artists, musicians, etc...etc..., assuming they had the requisite attribbutes and the tenacity and required work ethic. If you personally feel so outraged, I would imagine you are perfectly within your rights to employ a private teacher for your offspring, at whatever inflated salary you think they deserve. Once again, if somebody like an artist or musician decides to sell their work, it's their perogative as to how much they charge. We don't have any "rights" to their work, whether or not we think the price for it is undeserved or not. If they get rich on the proceeds, whilst other (in some peoples' opinions) workers in worse paid industries eek an existance - it's all choice. > As far as sports go, I have no interest in sports at all and do not think > that these people deserve to be paid very much for "playing". Fine - your opinion, and your entitled to it. I have no problem with them getting as much as they can. In the majority of cases, they won't have anything like the same bargaining power once they're in the late thirties and onwards - unless they have other talents, and manage to be proactive with their career. > Most athletes do not have to work that hard to accomplish what they do. What on *earth* do you base this on? Obviously this can well depend on the sport, but in most cases that I've experienced, natural talent, aptitude and / or genetic predisposition can be of paramount importance, but doesn't necessarily mean that there's no effort involved. > They > are simply using God given gifts that come naturally to them. I feel much > differently about artists of any kind. Personally I don't see the distinction - I think it's quite fallacious. > Like everything else, you have to have the God given skills to be an artist. > But being an artist, is much harder. On what grounds? With what metric? I think you are making some gross generalisations here. > Requires much more effort, time and > work to accomplish what they did. As somebody who's always been involved in physical activity, I find this sort of thing is quite insulting. How you can try and make out that artistic endeavours require more effort than physical / sporting pursuits, seems inexcusably ignorant. > My nephew was a video major. One day we were talking about something and > somehow he mentioned how he felt that "Shidler's List" was the best movie he > ever saw. I'm don't know it is # one, but it would be hard to argue that it > was brilliant. Not just Spielberg, but Neeson and many other people. > > You don't get results like that without, in addition to the talents God gave > you, really feeling and working at what you are doing. And do you think the worlds best sprinters get where they are by simple use of their talents, and no hard work? World class soccer players? Weight lifters? Snooker players? Cyclists? You are demeaning entire communities who are involved in "playing" sports, or competing to suggest it doesn't require the same degree of work as those that choose artistic pursuits. > Can we really call the Spice girls "Artists"??? I won't waste an MD on > them. Maybe if they wanted to some of their other talents.never > mind. Performers is what I'd class them. And I don't resent them a thing. If people are prepared to pay they price that the spicies market their wares as, then all strength to them. They won't be able to get away with the same sort of thing when they're in their forties. > One last thing. I chose the term "God Given", as a generic term. I'm not > a some kind of religious fanatic that goes around mentioning God in every > sentence. Perhaps nature's given gifts. Many athletes and sports people do have talents, and aptitudes, but I can't think of many that don't have to work damned hard to achieve what they do. To suggest that art requires a greater degree of effort and work ethic, to me suggests that this is simply an argument from
Re: MD: Napster article
las wrote: > > Larry, I completely agree with most of what you wrote about valuable > > professions not being paid what they're actually worth. > > Dan, if I gave the impression that artists should not be paid for their work, > that is not what I meant to say. But do artists deserve the payments that > they receive while our children are getting inferior education's because we > will pay Metalash!t millions of dollars a year and pay a great teacher $30 > thousand if they are lucky? It's not like that, really. Anyone who spends more on Metallica CD's/T-shirts/videos/concert-tickets/whatever than on hir's kids' education, needs to get hir priorities straight, IMHO. But lots of people spend a little bit of money on their CDs, hence they make millions. > As far as sports go, I have no interest in sports at all and do not think > that these people deserve to be paid very much for "playing". But you're not paying their salary, so it's not really up to you, is it? They get paid a huge amount of money, yes. But the people that pay them still make a profit after paying that huge salary. That's how the system works. > Most athletes do not have to work that hard to accomplish what they do. They > are simply using God given gifts that come naturally to them. I feel much > differently about artists of any kind. I think you'll find that most artists do indeed work very hard to accomplish what they do. If they limit their work to just the matches they play every now and again, they'll be off the big paylist very soon. > Like everything else, you have to have the God given skills to be an artist. > But being an artist, is much harder. Requires much more effort, time and > work to accomplish what they did. I doubt they're much different. > My nephew was a video major. One day we were talking about something and > somehow he mentioned how he felt that "Shidler's List" was the best movie he > ever saw. I'm don't know it is # one, but it would be hard to argue that it > was brilliant. Not just Spielberg, but Neeson and many other people. > > You don't get results like that without, in addition to the talents God gave > you, really feeling and working at what you are doing. > > Can we really call the Spice girls "Artists"??? I won't waste an MD on > them. Maybe if they wanted to some of their other talents.never > mind. Maybe "performers" is a better term. I wouldn't waste an MD on them, either... But millions of teenage girls like their music and badger their parents into buying it. And, surprise, surprise... That's exactly the goal the Spice Girls' creators had in mind. They did their job well, and got rich. Remember, I might not like some or all of the same music you like. But that doesn't mean the artists you like don't deserve to get paid a cent, or vice versa. > One last thing. I chose the term "God Given", as a generic term. I'm not > a some kind of religious fanatic that goes around mentioning God in every > sentence. Perhaps nature's given gifts. Well, thank god for that! ;-) ,xtG .tsooJ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
> > Larry, I completely agree with most of what you wrote about valuable > professions not being paid what they're actually worth. > Dan, if I gave the impression that artists should not be paid for their work, that is not what I meant to say. But do artists deserve the payments that they receive while our children are getting inferior education's because we will pay Metalash!t millions of dollars a year and pay a great teacher $30 thousand if they are lucky? As far as sports go, I have no interest in sports at all and do not think that these people deserve to be paid very much for "playing". Most athletes do not have to work that hard to accomplish what they do. They are simply using God given gifts that come naturally to them. I feel much differently about artists of any kind. Like everything else, you have to have the God given skills to be an artist. But being an artist, is much harder. Requires much more effort, time and work to accomplish what they did. My nephew was a video major. One day we were talking about something and somehow he mentioned how he felt that "Shidler's List" was the best movie he ever saw. I'm don't know it is # one, but it would be hard to argue that it was brilliant. Not just Spielberg, but Neeson and many other people. You don't get results like that without, in addition to the talents God gave you, really feeling and working at what you are doing. Can we really call the Spice girls "Artists"??? I won't waste an MD on them. Maybe if they wanted to some of their other talents.never mind. One last thing. I chose the term "God Given", as a generic term. I'm not a some kind of religious fanatic that goes around mentioning God in every sentence. Perhaps nature's given gifts. Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
las <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >To me music is something you do because you have a passion for it. If >people are willing to pay you money to make music that's fine. But the >minute it is no longer about the music, but about the money instead, you >are no longer an artist and your passion has turned to lust. Larry, I completely agree with most of what you wrote about valuable professions not being paid what they're actually worth. However, the problem with the above statement is that if we don't pay artists, there will be no art. You have to pay the rent, and no matter how much people love to write, sing, play, paint, sculpt, etc., if they can't do it while putting a roof over their head, they won't do it. Sure, there will be a few homeless artists who do it for the love of the art, but I'll sure miss the variety of music... [I won't even try to emulate Larry's attempt to keep it on-topic ] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
Dan Frakes wrote: Sounds more like mob rule than democracy to me ;-) After all, if the > majority of the population thinks you should give them your savings > account, should you? > The way I was always taught, our government (US) was set up where majority rules and minority has rights. If the majority want to be able to download music for free, and the minority don't want them to, then just don't make their music available to the public. Ah, you see it has nothing to do with majority infringing in the rights of the minority. It has to do with money. Nothing but money. In this country we hire incompetent teachers to mold the future of our nation and pay them modest salaries. You get what you pay for. (Which is not to say that there aren't some amazingly good teachers that are still being paid sh!t). At the same time we have this poor slob who takes always your garbage and can't afford to send his kids to college. Because we do not reward hard work. We pay people obscene amounts of money to have fun!! What do they call it when you participate in a baseball game or a band?? PLAYING!!! These people are doing just that. And I don't buy the excuse about all of the pressure on these guys hitting a little ball with a stick. The pressure on them is no greater then the kid in college who want's his team to make the state championship and doesn't see a dime for it (OK, before you say it, some of these kids get athletic scholarships). I know loads of guys who get up early Sunday morning to go out and PLAY ball. They do it for fun. They don't get paid for it. If you like playing ball, it is fun. There is nothing wrong with a person enjoying what he/she does for a living. Its great if someone actually loves what they do. But most people, even if they love it, are under a great deal of pressure and have a great deal of responsibility. What responsibility does a rock star have?? I love rock and have loved it for more years than I care to mention. I've been in bands when I was young. But if they stopped making rock tomorrow (or any other kind of music for that matter); if they stopped having ball games tomorrow etc., would it really make that much difference? Now if all of those poor slobs stopped taking away your garbage, in about 2 weeks you'd start considering paying them obscene amounts of money to get rid of it for you. By the time the rats as big as lions started taking over your neighborhood, you be willing to pay millions to get rid of the rats and the garbage. To me music is something you do because you have a passion for it. If people are willing to pay you money to make music that's fine. But the minute it is no longer about the music, but about the money instead, you are no longer an artist and your passion has turned to lust. Now I have to figure a way to tie this in with MD?? OK that poor slob garbage man wears a set of headphones and a MD walkman while he is picking up the garbage. You can't play ball and do that!! Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
las <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I thought that we live in a democracy? If the majority of population >want Napster to exist, shouldn't that be the case? Sounds more like mob rule than democracy to me ;-) After all, if the majority of the population thinks you should give them your savings account, should you? Sorry, couldn't resist - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
"J. Coon" wrote: > http://www.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/o/issues/2000/09/mann.htm > Rampant music piracy may hurt musicians less than they > fear. The real threat -- to listeners and, > conceivably, > democracy itself -- is the music industry's reaction > to it Every once and a while a big giant bully like Jack Valenti and the Motion Picture what ever (the bastards responsible for seeing that DVDs have F~ckrovision-which I swear degrades the image quality under certain circumstances) and the RIAA find themselves discovering that they are suddenly standing alone instead of being backed by big corporate brother as they were sure they would be: "Tech giants slam Napster injunction A broad coalition of technology and Internet companies are filing legal briefs Friday that are bitterly critical of last month's court decision against Napster, saying it could threaten the future of much of the technology industry. The parties involved, including the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), the Digital Media Association (DiMA) and NetCoalition, are careful to say that they are not explicitly supporting either side in the high-stakes lawsuit. But each group's separate arguments go a long way to support Napster in its battle against the Recording Industry Association of America. The CEA includes giants such as Sony Electronics, Apple Computer, Cisco Systems and hundreds of others across the industry. DiMA is composed of many of the leading online music companies, such as Listen.com and EMusic. NetCoalition is a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying group that includes Yahoo, America Online, Amazon.com and Excite@Home, among others. Several of the trade associations contend that federal Judge Marilyn Hall Patel misapplied copyright law that protects technologies with "substantial non-infringing uses." If her decision is used as precedent for other cases, it could threaten development across the consumer technology sector, they say. Patel's decision late last month sided with the record industry and said it is likely Napster was at least partly liable for massive copyright infringement on the part of its members. She ordered that the music-swapping site prevent copyrighted material from being traded via its technology." Sony must find themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place! On the one had they are now one of the largest record companies in America. On the other hand they are the leader of consumer "progressive storage" technologies (the MD, The Stick, etc.) I thought that we live in a democracy? If the majority of population want Napster to exist, shouldn't that be the case? If the RIAA wants to prevent people from sharing songs, I'm sure that they could come up with some way to prevent copying and at the same probably destroy the fidelity of their products. What gives them the absolute right to record in digital and then claim it is illegal for you to copy our digital music, since it is digital music that seems to really have the bug up their asses. Getting back to Sony, (I'm not making a political statement here or taking a side on the issue, just giving an analogy) take the person who thinks that abortion is the greatest sin that anyone can commit. Now, this guy happens to be a father and not crazy about Black people. His daughter is free thinking (if not all that smart when it comes to safe sex). She has a Black boyfriend and becomes pregnant. What does the father do?? He hates Blacks, but has made such a fuss about abortion?? Crazy analogy from crazy Larry. Hey, I turned 52 last Friday. I have been practicing dentistry since 1973. Between the mercury (which I hardly use these days) and the screams of the high speed drill (not to mention an occasional scream from a patient), you expect me to be normal?? Hope everyone is enjoying their Labor day holiday, Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
