Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] [ot] Is DJ-ing commercial use of music tracks?
From: Jan Depner (eviltwin69_AT_cableone.net)
Date: Sat Jan 24 2004 - 23:14:37 EET
Hey Ron, try to be a bit less reserved, don't hold back, you'll get high
blood pressure :-D
Jan
On Sat, 2004-01-24 at 13:54, R Parker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Mark, the following is my pre-coffee knee jerk
> reaction to your proposals. I got a little pissed off
> and irresponsible but feel my positions are worthy of
> consideration. I can't apologize for my feelings.
> Reguardless, I don't want what I stated to be directed
> at you...when the field is dry, water it. My reactions
> always suck but for some reason I have no aversion to
> looking the part of a fool.
>
> > Yeah but that's "old world" crud that helps keeps
> > bookkeepers and
> > lawyers in business. Perhaps in the days of
> > expensive paper music
> > manuscript and vinyl this auditing procedure had
> > some vaildity but
> > these days where the penny per beat ratio is so low
> > it's obnoxious
> > (to me) that these archaic payment restrictions
> > still exist at all.
>
> I pay much more for bandwidth than I ever did for
> sheet music and vinyl.
>
> > > But this music had another license, which
> > > explicitly wasn't intended to promote "commons".
> >
> > Exactly, and I would like to think part of the "new
> > world" game is
> > to spread the exposure of this musical commons, not
> > to tie it up
> > and inhibit it with an artifical non-musical
> > bureaucracy of paper
> > work shufflers that have nothing to do with either
> > the creation
> > or the presentation of said music.
>
> This would be a fine enough impetus for war if
> musicians aren't its greatest victim. They are!
>
> > These days, creating music is so ubiquitous that
> > it's more of a
> > priviledge for the artist to get their music
> > exposed, at all,
> > rather than a priviledge for the listener to partake
> > of the artists
> > work, or at least it's becoming moreso (again, in my
> > view).
>
> That doesn't feel much different than indentured
> servitude. I saw the first commercial album produced
> with Ardour in a juke box a couple days ago. I loved
> it! I might go back and take a picture. The bar is a
> neighborhood dump that's been in business since 1938.
> Anyway, while producing that album the artist and I
> went dumpster diving and shoplifting food together,
> several times. The artist is a U.S. illegal alien whos
> teeth are turning yellow and falling out. He's about
> 30 years old. Next time I see him, I'll tell him his
> wrotten teeth are the price of priviledge.
>
> >That "obnoxous bureaucratic system" already
> > exists for those
> > who want direct payment for their works of art... I
> > don't see how
> > these restrictions apply to music, or art in
> > general, in the commons.
>
> If we met drunk in a bar and you used the word
> obnoxous in the above context, I'd give you the
> beating of your life. Or, I'd force you to beat me.
>
> > I would like to think the point of music in the
> > commons is that
> > there are no inhibitions or restrictions to people
> > hearing it !
>
> I see nothing but inhibitions and restrictions for
> people to hear commons licensed music because artists
> can't afford to finance the ideal you describe.
> Discussing altnerative methods of payment isn't an
> option because I'm hungry and need to eat. If you are
> not or haven't experienced sustained years of poverty
> and hunger as a result of being an artist, I don't
> want you speaking for me.
>
> > --markc
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
> http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Jan 24 2004 - 23:15:38 EET