From: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org (alloy-digest) To: alloy-digest@smoe.org Subject: alloy-digest V4 #296 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 Wednesday, November 3 1999 Volume 04 : Number 296 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Alloy: Help! ["Trevor James Blagg" ] Alloy: Re: freeing the world one song at a time.... ["Ian Gifford" Subject: Re: Alloy: Help! Jonathan, I'm not sure where you are based, but try Virgin Record Stores U.K. They stocked this very item last year. If you don't live anywhere near such a store, I can check it out for you next time I go into Coventry. Trev... - ----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen M. Tilson To: Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 8:08 PM Subject: Alloy: Help! > > Jonathan asks our assistance: > > > does anybody know where I might be able to get a copy of Golden > > Age of Video from (PAL for UK use). > > I recall (perhaps incorrectly) that one of our US members found this very > item while on a trip to Ireland and purchased it in ignorance of the > difference in signal formats. (Understandable, as the cassettes are > identical.) I do not remember who that was, however. Anybody? > > /\/\iles > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 02:11:07 GMT From: "Ian Gifford" Subject: Alloy: Re: freeing the world one song at a time.... Crackers et alI: I have recently been reading up on The 3 original, international copyright conventions and what I see is some work created for a very noble cause. I do feel, however, that we live in a society where it is relatively easy for people to go out and seek new legal loop-holes from the origianl drafts made at these coventions. < For those who may be interested they are 1. Berne Covention, Switzerland 1886; 2. Buenos Aires convention 1910; 3. Universal Copyright Convention, Geneva 1952.....#1 discussed moral rights #2 reserved rights #3 suggested consistent identification of the author and date of publication. This last one makes me think of Large birds of prey that wait for the final breath to grab a tasty morsel for themselves.....> Some intersting points to ponder. Vietnam did not recognize copyrights until 1994 (guess why?) Nepal to this day, does not recognize copyright! Something else I find interesting is that The copyright is now maintained on a work, for the life of the creator (should the piece be a shared workit would apply to the latest surviving author) plus 50 years before the piece is declared public domain. This is in the U.S.A. and Canada where in Most European countries this is life plus 70 years! two other exceptions of these rules of (c) duration are Posthumous works such as "Free as a Bird" (John Lennon), will be copyrighted from 50 (70/europe) years after the publishing date. And Author Unknown that allows a "record company" to set up a trust fund for "Author X", which after a nominal amount of time the record company will take the royalties accrued, should no one Make a "feasible" claim to it! It is also interesting to me that we have all these "bureaus" and Lawyers to over-see and administer these copyright laws which are simply protected by having the(c) or (p) or (r) on a "product". Could you imagine a little (OA) on your CD? That's it! You're done with the administration and the potential court dates that would ensue from having (c) broken. You sure must know that there are a Plethora of aspiring legal types that are there to help you realize that someone has broken your (c)!! Wouldn't (OA) just make them squirm in their Leather , high backed goose down filled chairs (should they be that type of lawyer of course ;). The whole prospect excites me and is very close to home for me. The genre I work in (folk) is very close to what Crackers has brought to the table. Only we don't call it open Art. We call it Sharing and Passing on tradition and teaching. It's the same thing in my mind. But what I see in The Open Art movement takes that so much farther to the point of saying "Here's a wonderful new product that you can tear down and re-build to your own-liking! For the fabulous price of nothing but speaking my name when you present this and it's re-newed form to the public and also letting me do the same back if I choose!" So what went on with an artists work in Vietnam before 1994? And what goes on with an artists work in Nepal? Could they already have their own version of Open-Art? brain is hurting....must go lie down. :) Thanks guys. Ian Ian Gifford Singer/Songwriter, Radio show host. Sundays 12am till 2am (est) http://www.chrw.fm.net mailto:igifford@hotmail.com "All music is folk music. I ain't never heard no horse sing a song" Louis Armstrong, 1901-1971 ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 17:02:03 -0800 From: electrix Subject: Alloy: Snipped Prequel to Open Art Crackers and All: [Seems like my mail server has a glitch or compatability issue with the Alloy host server. My messages keeps getting clipped. I have switches to Outlook '98 to see if it would correct this problem.] The following was my complete thought.... To summarize, I am the artist. I allow a business to invest in my talent. Finally, the consumer remunerates us both from the process. It used to be that the artist didn't have the expensive technology available to get his art (and from the business standpoint --- product) to the consumer's hand. It was economically unfeasible for an artist. Today, with the recording technology and Internet access to consumers, it is revolutionizing the way an artist can get his art to the consumer. At a small scale, the artist can be the sole business. However, at a large scale (especially in manufacturing by large quantities), the agent business still has a grip on the industry. I expect this grip to loosen as they compete to get the independent artist/businessman on board to be serviced, not unless it becomes an oligarchy which seems to be the trend (Companies such as Time/Warner buying out records companies as quick as they blossom. This ensures its longevity and a few Sony's, Universal and Time/Warner defining the parameters). It is a business practices that economy of scales always brings about lower cost in manufacturing. As long as this "rule" exists in practice there will always be Big Boys to contend. electrix ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Nov 99 21:44:11 -0800 From: "electrix" Subject: Re: Alloy: Prequel to Open Art Crackers and All: (My attempt of sending my post with Outlook '98 didn't turn out to be any better. the words got all skewed. I guess I will have to take my chances in being snipped.) >>Electrix originally wrote: >>It is also necessary to establish the exact problem so that a clear-cut >>solution can be developed. I gather the problems you proposed are as >>follows, please correct me if I am wrong. >>1. The Copyright Laws are basically obsolete due to the era in which >>musicians live in whereby the old laws are not applicable today. >Crackers then wrote: >Well, I don't know about obsolete, however, copyright laws today >no longer live up to the spirit in which they were created. I see... but does the Open-Art provides a solution to the Copyright Laws? I would think not. It only offers an ALTERNATIVE. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but the proper solution is a legal re-hashing of that situation that is causing obstacles to the ideal. See what I mean? So I am suggesting that Open-Art as an idea that should stand on its own, not necessarily as a remedy to Copyright Laws. ********************** >>2. The Copyright Laws is restrictive to the proliferation of an artist work. >Not always, but it can be, especially if control of the artist's work >is in the hands of someone other than the artist. I can understand that... but that is why an artist should seek the best legal advice possible. Many artists are ill prepared to go into negotiations. The newcomers into the scene have the worst rate of royalty return since they are not a proven track of "success" to bargain. ************************ >>3. The Copyright Laws is being manipulated by Corporations to protect their >> self-interest in the ownership of their artist catalogue. >Well the laws are what the laws are so I don't know if manipulation is >the right word. However what is true is that the legislative bodies >of our countries are being manipulated by corporations to protect their >self-interest in the ownership of their artists's catalogues. Yes. That's corporate structure at work. It seeks to enhance its survival and that of its well-contented artist roster. This gets kind of intricate really, since some artist are obviously satisfied with the share of royalty they have negotiated. *************************** >>4. There is a distinction between "art" and "product." >Definetly and I think that distinction starts at the moment of conception. >The distinction comes when you enter the act of creation thinking >"I'm going to create a work that will sell a million units" or >"I'm going to create a work of art". This distinction then follows >through to the ways the work is presented to the public. Ideally, most artist go in with the attitude that they most write music FOR the public.. in the style most appreciated by the norm of the day. I don't necessarily equate that with being non-artistic. As a consumer, I still listen to the Maddonas, Prodigy's, Natalie Imbruglia's... but to me this satisfies some aspects of my musical libido. BTW, it was quite a thrill for me to observe William Orbit producing Maddona. I have followed Orbit's music for a long time and considered his music inaccessible to the majority of the public. Yet, the stint with Maddona turned out to be a successful combination. On the other hand, there are artist or groups that Record Companies specifically grooms to appeal to a population. Such blatant attempts sometimes are successful and sometimes they are not. But who am I to say to a Ricky Martin's "Viva La Vida Loca" fan that it is not art? To that fan, that music is as artistic as he/she can envision. Remember that there is no authority that can state what is true Art. Certainly not the panel of Grammy's, who would probably choose "Viva La..." as the best song of the year! ******************************** There are many stuff we are mixing in here. Royalty, Copyrights, Commercial Art versus Real Art, Corporate profiteering versus support of artist, and so forth. There are discrepancies, yes. But they stand on their own and require their own specific solution that Open Art wouldn't solve. However, setting up a... let's say, a Non-Profit Organization to promote Open Art for the sake of making music simply for the Art of it and that doesn't purport to solve the music industry's problem seem a more legitimate road to me. Consider also, that if an artist decides to make a slew of Open Art music there is economics involved in that process. The music has to be recorded. The artist must expend time and money creating his art. So in a way, the labor in creating is given away free as well. Labor are what induce people to charge money; not so much the art itself. Certainly, technology is making the process easier. But the software and hardware needs to be bought, upgraded or replaced... that's part of the business process; including the promotion and individual distribution. These are some of the consideration that will need to be overcome in Open Art. We can't ignore that there is a business process in the making of Open Art. We can't ignore also that there is a consumer. Targeting the right consumer that Open Art music would appeal. A commune of artist that would share a Non-Profit status and use shared resources would perhaps be more effective in the long run and be the best mean of utilizing economy of scale. However, there is no getting around the cost of making Open Art in order to set it FREE. electrix ------------------------------ End of alloy-digest V4 #296 ***************************