From: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org (alloy-digest) To: alloy-digest@smoe.org Subject: alloy-digest V4 #291 Reply-To: alloy@smoe.org Sender: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk X-To-Unsubscribe: Send mail to "alloy-digest-request@smoe.org" X-To-Unsubscribe: with "unsubscribe" as the body. alloy-digest Sunday, October 31 1999 Volume 04 : Number 291 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Alloy: [REPOST] Freeing The World One Song At A Time [Chris Cracknell Subject: Alloy: [REPOST] Freeing The World One Song At A Time Since Electric missed the original posts on this subject that Miles and I felt would really interest him, I'm reposting my contributions to the thread. - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= I've been thinking, as all geekboys do at one time or another, of putting together a Linux box for myself. I keep meaning to dust off my old 486 and make it a Linux box but I just haven't had the time. I like the whole idea behind "Open Source" software and it's neat that last year Red Hat made about 48 million by selling "free" software. Think about that. They're selling open source software. Anyone can download and burn their own Red Hat CD, they can even give or sell CDs away. They can take the program and custom tailor the source code to suit their own needs. You would think with all that in opposition it would be damn near impossible to make a decent buck off open source software, but Red Hat managed to pull in about 48 million in profit. Not bad for a wee company. I've worked for bigger ones that have done worse. I've been thinking a lot about copyright laws lately, especially now that here in Canada laws have been pushed through legislation by the big record companies working under the guise of "copyright protection" which are, infact, designed only to squash the uprise of independent artists releasing their own albums. It seems that copyright laws, which were originally created to serve and protect the needs of both the artists and the general public, are now more tools for corporate oppression than anything else. When copyright laws were first created life was much different for the typical artist than it is today. Publishing and distributing a work was very expensive and labour intensive. Copyright laws were passed to encourage the creation of works by granting to the work's creator a limited monopoly of 28 years on all works created. This law was a good thing for both artists and the average citizen. The artist had a financual incentive to create and publish works (although the truth of the matter was the typical artist would sell the copyrights of their works to the publishers for a mere pitance and the publishers would rake in the dough from the works). The general public would gain free access to the works in 28 years when it became public property. It was a win-win situation. But something dark and unfortunate happened. Created works ceased to be art and became instead corporate owned assets. Pressures were put on lawmakers by companies who feared the thought of their assets belonging to the public someday, to extend the duration of these so called "limited" monopolies. Gradually the term of copyright protection grew and grew until it reached the absurd period of protection offered today under most copyright laws. Suddenly the rights of the public to access works took the back seat to the rights of the corporations that owned the rights to the works. Even the artists themselves could be screwed over if they allowed ownership of their works to fall into corporate hands because they will never again, in their lifetime, have free access to their own works. Pretty sad, pretty bleak and in a very real way it reduces "art" to "product". But what can be done about it? There is certainly no way to fight a big government/big business tag-team, especially not if your just a bunch of artists as anyone who has ever tried to wrangle a bunch of artists together to work towards a common goal will likely tell you it can be easier to herd cats. What does copyright law even mean to the average musician now adays anyways? The creative world of the late 20th century is vastly different from the creative world of the early 20th century. There has never been a time in human history where it has been easier and cheaper to produce, publish, and distribute a work than it is right now. Drops in the prices of recording equipment coupled with advances in technology have given musicians the power to produce professional sounding tapes and CDs from their very own basements and garages. Access to the World Wide Web is giving them avenues of distribution that were not available to the average musician only a decade or so ago. Cost is no longer the stumbling block it once was in the path of creation. Money is no longer the barrier to producing a work of art, publishing a work of art, and distributing a work of art. Is money still needed then as an incentive to create art when artists have the power and the means to create, publish, and distribute their works for themselves? Would any of us lay down our instruments, our pens, and our brushes if we knew that we would never see another cent from our creations? Why would we stop creating when we have never in history had such power to express ourselves? How much money does the average musician see from the creation of their art? The city in which I live, Hamilton Ontario, has the highest number of musicians per capita of anywhere in Canada. Most people in this city can probably give you the names of at least 3 friends or relatives they know who are working musicians. Most of them don't earn enough to be able to give up their day-jobs but they still recieve a sizable portion of their income from their art. But how do they earn that income? I'm sitting here pondering my last SOCAN cheque (SOCAN is the Canadian copyright institution similar to ASCAP or BMI in the US) and thinking about how much of my income as a musician comes from royalties and how much of my income as a musician comes from other sources. The truth is I make far, far more money working as a session musician, playing on other people's albums on a per/hour or per/project basis, than I have ever made from royalties. Infact, I make far more money playing gigs in smokey little bars than I have ever made from royalties. Would I really miss my royalty cheques if they stopped comming? No, not really. I think too of my friends who are also working musicians, some make more money than me from their art, many make less. How much would their lives be changed if the SOCAN cheques stopped? For every Micheal Jackson out there who becomes a mega-hit superstar and rakes in money at an obscene rate, there are likely 100 thousand working musicians who will never recieve a substantial royalty cheque for their work and will likely never be able to quit their day-jobs. The money they do make from their art will come from being session musicians, from playing gigs, and from their own direct sales of their independently released albums. Their SOCAN cheques will never be their bread winners. Why then do we cling to copyright laws so desperately as a financual incentive when the vast majority of artists will never see enough money in the form of royalties to shed their day-jobs? It is because the lure of becoming that mega-hit superstar is so very seductive. Just like the lottery, the numbers are stacked against us, but we buy the ticket and we dream the dream and for every winner that makes it to stardom we say "that could be me". The seductiveness of a dream is a powerful thing and hard to fight. The illusion that you're only one hit away from superstardom is so very intoxicating. But the reality is your not going to "make it". If you make a living from your art it will be doing session work, playing gigs, or composing music for bigger projects. You won't become a superstar and you'll never know the joy of trading in a royalty cheque of an 80 foot yacht. But if we give up the illusion of this dream, what is there that we might embrace? It is my hope that the software concepts of "open source" can be moulded to apply to works of art to create "open art". This is why I've decided to publish this letter on the Alloy E-mail list. Alloy is an interesting collection of artists and free thinkers, many on this list are working musicians such as myself. It would be my hope that together we could pound out a guideline for "open art" that might create a mini-revolution in the arts industry, particularily the music industry which is where my intrests lie, that would benefit artists who choose to release their works as "open art". Here is what I envision the guidelines for a work of "open art" to be. I hope that together we can solidify these guidelines into an "open art" movement and at least in some small way challenge the industry of art in the same way "open source" has challenged the industry of computer software. What is a work of "open art"? A work of "open art" is a created work that has been released by the artist to the public in general with few or no limitations on its use. Because the field of music is the field of art in which I have the most experience I will give all my examples of "open art" as they would apply to that field. Others whose talents lie in other artistic directions can modify and express the concept of "open art" as it would apply to their disciplines. Any work released as a work of "open art" would be free for the public to use, broadcast, copy, reproduce, modify, and distribute but credit for the original work must always be given to the original work's creator and any work or body of works which incorporates an "open art" work itself becomes a work of "open art". What would this mean in terms of "open art" and works of music. If I were to release a song as "open art" that would mean any radio station would be free to broadcast that song without having to pay me royalties to do so but credit for the song must be given to me. It would mean that any musician may perform, record, and distribute "covers" of that song without paying to me a royalty but must credit me for the song. It would also mean that any works that they create and distribute with my work of "open art" also become works of "open art". So if they cover my song on an album, every song that they have created that is also on that album and the album itself become works of "open art". It would mean that any musician may modify my song and distribute the modified version. The modified version of the song would become "open art". They would get credit for the performing the modifications and I would get credit for composing the original work. It would mean that any film maker, video maker, video game maker, multi-media maker etc. would be free to use my song in the production of one of their works without paying me a royalty. However, credit for the song must be given to me and by employing my "open art" song in their production, their production itself becomes a work of "open art". It would mean that people may copy and distribute my song without having to pay me royalties to do so. Wether employment of a work of "open art" is done for money or not is irrelivant. "Open art" derived works may be distributed freely or may be sold. No royalty is needed to be paid to the works creator but credit must be given. This, however doesn't mean that you cannot pay the creator of an "open art" work for the use of their art. If you employ a work of "open art" in your production and in turn use that production to generate a sizable profit, you may choose to grant an honorarium or percentage of the profits to the creator of that "open art" work as you see fit but such financual recompense is not required to employ a work of "open art". What it does not mean is that every work created by an artist is "open art" or that every work an artist creates will be "open art". Only works specifically released by the artist as "open art" will fall under these guidelines. It is my hope that with the help of my fellow artists a precise guideline and definition of "open art" can be crafted at which point in time I would like to take all works which I have created to this date and likely most works I will create in the future and release them as "open art". People of Alloy, please share with me any ideas, insights, and suggestions you might have that will help to make an "open art" movement a reality. If you know of any arts organizations that have similar goals in mind please share them with me too. I can't see "open art" toppeling the music industry giants anymore than I can see Linux toppeling Microsoft. But I do see a vision of an "open art" movement allowing more artists to reach more people with their works and to promote the creative free exchange of ideas and expression of ideas between artists. CRACKERS (Open artist hopeful from hell!!!!!!!!) -- Collector of Atari 2600 carts - Accordionist - Bira Bira Devotee - Anime fan * http://www.hwcn.org/~ad329/crab.html | Crackers' Arts Base * * http://www.angelfire.com/ma/hozervideo/index.html | Hozer Video Games * Nihongo ga dekimasu - 2600 programmer - Father of 2 great kids - Canadian eh ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 19:44:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Chris Cracknell Subject: Alloy: Re: [REPOST] Freeing The World One Song At A Time In article <199910180219_MC2-895F-8EE2@compuserve.com>, you wrote: >Crackers, > >Clarify, please, how a musician or other artist would, under your >proposed system, make a living? Clearly I haven't considered this as >deeply as yourself, but it seems on the surface of things that >undoing "copy protection" will adversely affect a creative artist's >income earning ability. ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ "Open Art" won't work for all artists much like "Open Source" won't work for all software companies, but I think the vast majority of musicians would benefit from "Open Art". The average working musician makes very little money if any from royalty cheques so they have little to lose by realeasing their work as "open art". They'll continue to be employed as session musicians, they'll continue to make money from gigs, and they'll continue to draw income from commissioned works for other projects such as writing songs for other musicians, or soundtracks for film, video, videogames, etc. There's nothing stopping a musician from choosing which works they wish to release as "Open Art" and which works they choose to not to. So if I'm commissioned to write a song for Bonnie Raitt then I wouldn't be releasing that work as "Open Art", but then the music that I write for myself I would. Of course Bonnie could feel free to just grab one of my "Open Art" works and release it on her album and not have to pay me a cent but then one of the conditions of "Open Art" is that it can only be included with other works of "Open Art". Let's face it, even if Bonnie Raitt wished to release an album of "Open Art" works it's doubtful that the record companies that control her would allow her to do so. Look at all the trouble 2 Live Crew got into when they tried to give their music away for free a few years ago. For the average musician "Open Art" would likely be a benefit. It's a trade off. They lose the SOCAN cheque (which for the average Canadian musician amounts to sweet-dick-all) but in return their work becomes more accessible to the world. For a certain segment of the arts community this will be worth far more than their SOCAN cheque. Like "Open Source", "Open Art" will not be a concept that will be embraced by everyone in the artworld. Infact, like "Open Source" [Bill Gates wrote a paper in the 70s in which he called on computer organizations to Blackball programmers who wrote public domain software], "Open Art" will likely be seen as a threat by many in the artworld, especially the music industry. The record industry is already begining to reel from the assault of independently released albums (which is why Canada has passed a law that imposses a levy on independently released albums that goes directly into the pockets of the big record labels) they may feel that if radio stations don't have to pay royalties, they may begin to play more "open art" music and less royalty music. To the songsmith who makes his bread writing songs for Bonny Raitt and George Micheal, "Open Art" won't be a viable option. For the indie band from Moosejaw "Open Art" could be more valuable than the $12 they'd likely recieve from SOCAN. ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ >So where's the incentive for non-performance artists to create? ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ Incientive? The act of creation is its own incentive. Like I said, how many of us would lay down our tools of creation if we knew for a fact that we would never make a single penny from our efforts? ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ >Naive as I am, I still don't expect the entertainment industry to function >on the honor system. ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ Who says it has to? If you're releasing a work as "Open Art" then there's nothing stoping someone from coming along and recording your song on their album, except for the terms of use implicit in the employment of a work of "Open Art". They use your song on their album then every song of theirs on that album becomes "Open Art" and you're just as free to turn around and start selling covers of their work. The honorarium I suggested is just that, a suggestion. There's absolutely nothing manditory about it. There will be some who share the wealth and there will be some who won't. In the end it doesn't matter because for the artist who released their work as "Open Art" the work itself is more important than money. Basically I envision "Open Art" as a movement of artists who are more interested in having their works made accessible to the world than they are in making money off their works. That's not to say they still won't make money by selling their CDs and tapes of "Open Art" songs, it's just that the money is more of a fringe benefit it's the distribution of the work itself that's the goal. ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ >Sad but true in my world view. Copyright laws are there to protect >us from natural oversights, and unscrupulous people and corporations. ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ But originally copyright laws were created to ensure the public access to works of art. Granting a limited monopoly to the work's creator was the means with which this end was met. You make it, it's yours for 28 years, after that it belongs to the masses. The 28 year monopoly encouraged artists to tackle the huge obstacles that used to stand in the way of publishing and distributing a work and as a result the number of works available to the public grew. But then, very quickly, the means became an end in itself as soon as works of art ceased to be art and became instead corporate assets. Now the public has very little rights when it comes to access of works. If your a corporation and you wish to censor an artist all you have to do is buy them off then refuse to publish their works (which happens more often than you might think). By the time the public gets the right to access the artists work you will be dead, the artist will be dead, the artists's children will be dead, and the artists grandchildren will be very, very old. That is, if by that time you haven't been successful in lobbying the government into extending copyright protection for, oh, another 100 or 200 years. Copyright laws are a double edged sword. Let's face it, with tools like inexpensive, powerful computers, the internet, and things like Beatnik and MP3 files, the obstacles that stood in the way of artists back when copyright laws were first penned no longer exist. ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ >Perhaps if you examined and discussed the mechanism whereby Red Hat >earned 48 megabucks selling free software, that might go a ways >toward understanding how we might do the same. ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ According to my friend who works in a computer retail store, the two most common reasons people give for buying a copy of Linux over downloading and burning their own CD are. 1) Downloading and burning their own CD is a time consuming pain in the ass. 2) Having a real, material, paper manual to read is a lot nicer and more convenient than having a bunch of text files on your hard drive. When I finally get around to making my Linux box (but first I have to build some kitchen cabinets) I'm going to buy a copy because I'd rather spend $35 for a CD and manual than go through the hassel of making one myself. Of course Red Hat has more going on than just the retail sales of Linux. Where they make their real money is from selling support contracts. How that last one would apply to the arts world is beyond me. Perhaps the equivalent would be if you release a work as "open art" and it becomes popular through that avenue of distribution it will attract the attention of people in the entertainment industry who will recognize your talent and commission you for other projects. The harsh reality of the entertainment biz is that only a tiny percentage of working musicians will be able to live off their royalty cheques, only a tiny percentage of working musicians will ever sell a song to Bonnie Raitt (or anyone else), and only an extremely, fractional, tiny percentage of musicians will ever become "superstars". "Open Source" saved Linux from falling into obscurity. I believe that "Open Art" can do the same for a sizable number of independent musicians. In the end it's just another option for musicians. They can play the lotto and gamble on the hopes that they'll become superstars, or they can sacrifice their tiny SOCAN cheques (or whatever copyright organization is used in their country) in the hopes of increasing public access to their art. And if anyone is curious, the last royalty cheque I cashed was for about $200 US. Of course it was a cheque for software royalties, not music ones. ;) In anycase, as you can no doubt tell, I'm very passionate about refining the definition and terms of "Open Art" as I am quite eager to make available the body of my works under such a system. All input on this subject will be greatly appreciated. CRACKERS (Becoming very open from hell!!!) -- Collector of Atari 2600 carts - Accordionist - Bira Bira Devotee - Anime fan * http://www.hwcn.org/~ad329/crab.html | Crackers' Arts Base * * http://www.angelfire.com/ma/hozervideo/index.html | Hozer Video Games * Nihongo ga dekimasu - 2600 programmer - Father of 2 great kids - Canadian eh ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 02:38:06 EDT From: RThurF@aol.com Subject: Alloy: member question... Has anyone heard from Dennis lately? wondering... Robin T ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 14:03:11 -0400 From: "Stephen M. Tilson" Subject: Alloy: When /\/\iles met Electrix Alloids (it's like the curiously strong mint, but no mint), (Which is to say we are curiously strong.) Wow. (Thanks Electrix!) I, too, feel a deep kinship with this new person in my life. Electrix and I share a love of progressive music, the guitar as voice, a certain skill with computers and technology, and, I think, spiritualism. It was a joy to meet him. I think it was but 7 seconds or so before we started laughing together. I recognized him instantly, even though it was night on a strange street in a strange town. But we weren't strangers. Far from it. Suffice it to say that October 28th, 1999 was the first time we met, but it certainly will not be the last, eh?!! Some notes on Omar "Electrix" Cayasso: Great sense of humor Infectious laugh Kind and Gentle (who woulda thunk it? ) Easy on the eyes Convivial Thoughtful Master of the guitar! This last bit I cannot stress too much. I have now, through the BDay project, had the privilege of hearing the results of some musical endeavors that Omar has husbanded in the recent past. Let me tell you, there is a great talent in our midst. I am stunned: Stunned by his accomplished expertise, and stunned that talent like this has gone unheard by the world at large. Much respect, Omar. Much respect. Your compositional skills and instrumental execution make me come right out of my chair sometimes! ********************************************************************* This Alloy meeting added fuel to the fire of my thoughts on the subject of getting to know people through cyber-connections. To put it simply, I feel it is nearly impossible to correctly assess someone's character and personality through email alone, and I find that very frustrating. Email filters out all the gestures, tone of voice, and other more metaphysical statements we use to punctuate our conversations and convey meaning. It is nearly impossible for me to convey to you who I am through ASCII alone. Perhaps this is one of the reasons I have worked hard at making the Alloy experience more than one of just email. (Many thanks to Paul and Robin for adding the visual element with their "Alloy - Names to Faces" pages! And fwiw, I have come to dislike that picture of me in the tuxedo. I much prefer the one of me with the guitar that was formerly on Paul's page. That is very much more who I really am.) Anyway, I know now, that at least I, personally, do not always present an accurate picture of my thoughts, feelings, and motivations when interacting with you here. I wish it were otherwise because then there would be less chance of misunderstandings, hurt feelings, and misplaced anger - and more chance of shared joy and growth. To quote Frank Herbert, "When strangers meet, great allowances should be made for differences of custom and training." Indeed it is so, for if we do not put aside our pre-conceived notions, we cannot truly meet anyone. I have come to understand that my natural enthusiasm and relentless pursuit of that which I desire can make me appear rather obnoxious to some folks, especially when you can't hear my voice, see my eyes and hands and the way I use my body, or feel my spirit beside you. I rail at that - doing my damnedest to overcome these limitations, but have learned that patience is best, and necessary. To those of you who have been put off or angered or otherwise have felt mistreated or bulldozed by me and my "relentless pursuits" - I apologize. I promise to try harder as per the above. All this because I have come to think of you as my family. I've been connected to the cyber world since 1987, but this is the first e-group I've really felt a deep connection to. Alloy, and all we represent, has become an indelible part of my life. Thank you! /\/\iles-brings-the-song ******************************************************* * * * Knowledge is an unending adventure * * at the edge of uncertainty. * * Frank Herbert * * * ******************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 14:08:35 -0400 From: "Stephen M. Tilson" Subject: Alloy: From the lips of Ian Anderson . . . [OT] Heard on a Jethro Tull concert bootleg: "Three hundred years ago . . . "Johann Sebastian Bach got it in his silly little head to write a piece of music that I would *bastardize* three hundred years later. Not intentionally, cause, a fine little bit of music, I only heard the first bit and made up the rest, so it's, uh, kind of half his and half mine. Ah, Joe, I'm sure he wouldn't mind me calling him Joe, wrote this piece of music to actually celebrate something very very important, something very dear to his heart. JS Bach wrote this three hundred years ago to celebrate the birth of . . . "Martin Lancelot Barre, who is slightly older than I am." Thought some of us might get a chuckle out of that. That is all, /\/\iles-brings-the-song ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 16:27:31 -0400 From: "Stephen M. Tilson" Subject: Alloy: The Time Electrix Met Miles Electrix wrote: > And finally, to have the tough job of keeping the enthusiasm > alive in the Bday projects (to the point o At this point the text was cut off in the message I received. I must admit to some curiosity as to what came next. Do you still have the original available, E? /\/\ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 16:27:32 -0400 From: "Stephen M. Tilson" Subject: Alloy: It Came From Uranus! Thanks for the great review, Crackers! > Cruel: Holy Farking Snit! Thanks again. I'm glad you noticed. Sadly, Monya didn't order a copy of Bride of Aliens, so I guess she'll never know . . . ;-) > "Secret sauce... ruins my shirt.... secret sauce... ruins my > shirt..." Hey! You're gettin' Arby's all over me, eh. Re: Blue Sky > This song is so cool it shits ice cubes. LOL!!! I had to try really hard to not wake the sleeping Mary when I read this. I'm still surprised she didn't wake up from the chortling going on in the next room at 8AM . . . > Now, as for the packaging. > > WOW! > > Keith, bravo on putting together a very professional looking > package. I particularily love the "Alloy Records" logo. The > picture on the back of the CD is priceless. Thug2: Yeah! More later, /\/\iles ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 19:06:45 -0400 From: "Stephen M. Tilson" Subject: Alloy: Re: [REPOST] Freeing The World One Song At A Time Crackers, Thanks for reposting the Open Art thread. I've been thinking about it a lot. In a couple of days I will post same. Cheers! /\/\iles ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 20:06:40 EDT From: CJMark@aol.com Subject: Re: Alloy: It Came From Uranus! Hey Stephen.. I know I'm late with this.. but I present as an excuse my incredibly busy work schedule of late.. and humbly hope that it might help in my quest. which is.. Are there any CDs left? After reading Crackers' review.. I feel that my CD collection is missing a very important piece.. and I would like to amend that. Now I realize that since I did not participate this time that it might be an impossible request to honor. But if there is a way for me to belatedly order a copy.. this is request! If not.. I guess I'll try to figure out how to hear it online. Thanks! Ciao for now.. Mark ------------------------------ End of alloy-digest V4 #291 ***************************