Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
- -
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 09:38:39 -0700
From: "s~Z" <keithmar@jetlink.net>
Subject: Re: RE:Zorns NO to MP3
>>>I make a new limited edition CDR/EP every month in a quantity of twenty.
I
sell them for $3 a piece (2 for $5). They usually cost anywhere from $2-4 to
make each one. And I usually give away 10 of the 20. And I work a day job.
So fuck musicians that whine about not making enough money. It should NEVER
be about the money. That is fucking sad.<<<
I know a lot of musicians who make very little money creating their art, and
NOT ONE of them complain about money. They do however complain a lot about
the treatment of their art by others, and the rights others think they have
about its dissemination. Is the music you are releasing music you created?
If not, it is no altruistic act that you copy it and give it away. Creating
music IS many musicians' day jobs. The management of their product,
financially and aesthetically, is a right they shouldn't have to feel
ashamed of, especially considering the great good they are providing for
those of us who don't have the gift they have been blessed with.
- -
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 11:47:27 -0500
From: "Robert A. Pleshar" <rpleshar@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: RE:Zorns NO to MP3
John-
Hooray for you. Would you go to your "day job" if you didn't get paid? Do
you do it because you love it? Even so, I bet you wouldn't show up if
someone didn't pay you. The reality is that music is a hobby for you and
an occupation for professional musicians. There is absolutely NO legitimate
reason that a musician should be forced to give up control of his own music
in any format to anyone just because some fans think they have a right to
"own" every burp that makes it on to tape somewhere. If Zorn doesn't want
even edited MP3s of his performances out there, he has every right to say
so - whether it's about money, quality control or any combination of the two.
Rob
At 09:23 AM 5/9/00 -0700, John Schuller wrote:
>I make a new limited edition CDR/EP every month in a quantity of twenty. I
>sell them for $3 a piece (2 for $5). They usually cost anywhere from $2-4 to
>make each one. And I usually give away 10 of the 20. And I work a day job.
>So fuck musicians that whine about not making enough money. It should NEVER
>be about the money. That is fucking sad.
- -
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 10:24:14 -0700
From: Martin_Wisckol@link.freedom.com
Subject: CD reviewers (off topic)
I've just been invited to join the regular rotation of CD reviewers for
the Orange County Register, a daily newspaper of 380,000 circulation
distributed between LA and San Diego. I look forward to bringing the
avant to this broad audience 2-3 times a month.
The paper apparently receives review copies of most major label
releases. I, however, would like to hook up with Tzadik, Avant,
Winter&Winter, hat ART, Black Saint, KF, Laswell's various label
associations and some of the other independent labels who do not
service the paper. If any of you kind souls have contact names and
contact info you will share with me, I will light a candle in the altar
for you. Also, any of you are involved with indies and are looking for
review outlets, let me know.
Martin
- -
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 19:30:31 +0100
From: "Alastair Wilson" <wilsonah@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: RE:Zorns NO to MP3
Of course, you could say that Zorn and his musicians have been paid for the
live performance they've given and that's where it ends.
Hopefully Zorn has some live tapes of Naked City that he can put out so that
we can hear legit versions of all those "unrecorded" tunes. If Eugene
Chadbourne can do it...
> John-
>
> Hooray for you. Would you go to your "day job" if you didn't get paid? Do
> you do it because you love it? Even so, I bet you wouldn't show up if
> someone didn't pay you. The reality is that music is a hobby for you and
> an occupation for professional musicians. There is absolutely NO
legitimate
> reason that a musician should be forced to give up control of his own
music
> in any format to anyone just because some fans think they have a right to
> "own" every burp that makes it on to tape somewhere. If Zorn doesn't want
> even edited MP3s of his performances out there, he has every right to say
> so - whether it's about money, quality control or any combination of the
two.
>
> Rob
>
>
- -
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 11:59:59 -0700
From: "s~Z" <keithmar@jetlink.net>
Subject: Re: RE:Zorns NO to MP3
>>>Of course, you could say that Zorn and his musicians have been paid for
the
live performance they've given and that's where it ends.<<<
It would indeed end there if people didn't record it. Since they do, it
keeps on going, and so should artists' rights regarding what they created.
- -
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 15:15:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ken Waxman <cj649@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
Subject: RE: Zorn's NO to MP3 - more info (long)
Yes, the world is enriched by more of Parker's being available to the
public. And yes copyright does run out. But (as little as I know about,
the period varies with each country --any intellecttual property lawyers
here? --and is usually around 50 or 100 years.
The basic point though, is that the creator should be the one benefitting
from his or her creation not other people. I don't know if the folks
concerned about "free" music have ever worked as a freelancer as I have
as do most musicians. As a writer I wouldn't want something I worked and
sweated over republished ad infinitum without me getting some
compensation for it. And it's the same with a "record" of music.
Ken Waxman
On Tue, 9 May 2000, Dan Hewins wrote
>
> My question on this subject is, did Parker's heirs make the music?
> (I don't really want to get in a heir argument though...) Is the
> world a better or worse place now that it includes all of these
> nerver-before-released Parker recordings? My opinion is that it's
> better. Besides, isn't there a part of copyright law that makes
> copyrights expire after a certain number of years? (Apparently,
> Mickey Mouse was going to become public domain but Disney bought a
> new law or something.)
>
> Dan Hewins
>
> NP: some crappy indie rock compilation (surefire distribution)
>
- -
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 12:48:31 -0700
From: "s~Z" <keithmar@jetlink.net>
Subject: Re: Zorn's NO to MP3
I make not a dime from supporting musicians' rights. I am so fucking
grateful that a relatively small number of artists are willing to sacrifice
material gain to create music that appeals to a small audience that I think
they deserve all of the rights and protection they can get. Calling them
greedy or whiny or "Capitalistic" is a disgrace. All I have to say to them
is, "Thank you, thank you, thank you. What can I do to help?"
- -
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 15:59:16 -0400
From: wlt4@mindspring.com
Subject: copyright
>But (as little as I know about, the period varies with each country >--any intellectual property lawyers here? --and is usually around 50 >or 100 years.
In the US, for works before 1978 (such as Parker's) it's a bit tricky but should be 95 years from creation if all the renewals were done though later statutes made some extensions apply regardless of whether the renewals were done. It's much more clear since 1978: work is protected by copyright as soon as it's created and protection lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. This is covered in title 17 of the US Code.
LT
- -
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 12:09:36 -0500
From: Diego Gruber <dgruber@uio.satnet.net>
Subject: Re: Zorn's NO to MP3
s~Z wrote:
> >>>then probably he's unable to recognize the difference between good and
> evil.<<<
>
> He who will not give me art at as little expense to me personally as
> possible cannot differentiate between good and evil.
He who doesn't understand what is being said, should refrain from making
foolish comments.
My point, which I guess was obvious for most people, was that Zorn, for his
rejections of computers and the internet, will rather shut himself from the
whole issue and ban all mp3s. He is not going to surf the web himself and
judge the intentions and results of those who posted the mp3s, so he'll
rather say NO to all of them. Other musicians who are more familiar with this
type of media will be more open minded an flexible towards this issue, like
for example Trey Spruance.
D
- -
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 15:17:00 -0400
From: Joseph Zitt <jzitt@metatronpress.com>
Subject: Re: Zorn's NO to MP3
On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 12:09:36PM -0500, Diego Gruber wrote:
> My point, which I guess was obvious for most people, was that Zorn, for his
> rejections of computers and the internet, will rather shut himself from the
> whole issue and ban all mp3s. He is not going to surf the web himself and
> judge the intentions and results of those who posted the mp3s, so he'll
> rather say NO to all of them. Other musicians who are more familiar with this
> type of media will be more open minded an flexible towards this issue, like
> for example Trey Spruance.
Mapping familiarity to acceptance is erroneous. I would say, for example,
that Robert Fripp is quite familiar with the Web, yet is against the
spread of King Crimson bootlegs and MP3s. QED.
- --
|> ~The only thing that is not art is inattention~ --- Marcel Duchamp <|
