From: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org (alloy-digest) To: alloy-digest@smoe.org Subject: alloy-digest V6 #56 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, March 4 2001 Volume 06 : Number 056 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Alloy: FEVER PITCH SOUNDTRACK [Spencer2424@aol.com] Re: Alloy: to jon [Spencer2424@aol.com] Alloy: Speaking Of Napster [Part 2] [CRACKERS ] Alloy: Aww for crap's sakes! [CRACKERS ] Alloy: And another thing... [CRACKERS ] Re: Alloy: to jon ["PAULO GONZALEZ" ] Alloy: Speaking of Napster.... [CRACKERS ] Re: Alloy: Aww for crap's sakes! ["Robin" ] Re: Alloy: FEVER PITCH SOUNDTRACK ["Robin" ] Re: Alloy: to jon ["Robin" ] Alloy: Re: alloy-digest V6 #55 ["Julie Sweeney" ] Re: Alloy: Aww for crap's sakes! [CRACKERS ] RE: Alloy: Way to go Jon - give 'em hell! ["Damien Sweeney" > I quite agree! It's always fun for me to bat around a few ideas and viewpoints, particularly with someone as passionate, intelligent and articulate as yourself. Alloy is lucky to have you at the helm. =) - - Craig ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 03:04:09 EST From: Spencer2424@aol.com Subject: Re: Alloy: to jon In a message dated 3/3/01 2:04:37 PM Central Standard Time, jason66@ig.com.br writes: << I am glad to dissapoint you, but I don't have that power in my hands. If something is screwed, you should scan your own mind and atitude towards people or life. >> Actually, I would contend that any given individual does have the power to significantly alter (or "screw up" if you prefer) a group like Alloy, if they intentionally operate outside its boundaries of acceptable conduct. And if you doubt that, just check out the Everything But the Girl fan group, which could have been very much like Alloy. Unfortunately, it isn't (or wasn't, when I gave up on it a year ago). I used to subscribe to EBTG, being a big fan of Tracy Thorn and Ben Watt. But there was this one guy on there who made it his personal mission to ridicule anyone who posted anything he thought was "deserving" of his rather mean spirited sense of humor. And it seemed like that just opened the door for all kinds of negative dialogue. I mean, there were lots of people in that group who not only diss'd each other, but also went after Tracy and Ben, moaning and bitching about how they'd "sold out" with their last two albums. Some fans they were! And I'm not trying to compare you to Mr. Woo on EBTG. Believe me, even Andrew Dice Clay would have a hard time keeping up with that guy. My point is that one person can have a significant effect on a group (both positive and negative). As far as this whole Fever Pitch episode goes, I don't know you at all, and have no basis to form any opinion beyond the two emails you've posted. But in your first email, you basically said that you knew you weren't supposed to be asking for a copy of Fever Pitch, but then proceeded to plead with the entire Alloy membership to go ahead and send it to you anyway! Does this not seem like a bit of a contradiction? So I wasn't entirely surprised to see Jonathon's somewhat irate email. After all, if someone did send Fever Pitch to you, Thomas Dolby might well conclude that he could no longer trust the Alloy members, and there probably wouldn't be any more cool downloads in the future. But instead of your just saying "Hey, sorry - my mistake," you basically turned it back on Jonathon, saying that he overreacted to the situation, and probably has some sort of personality problems. Well, I'm sorry, but that's probably not going to give you a whole of credibility with this group. Anyway, Robin has done an exemplary job of stating her position on all this in a very gracious and diplomatic manner. And I'm sure that she would prefer that we all just drop it in favor of more productive discussions. So, that's what I will do. But I just want to say this: Alloy seems to be an unusually close-knit and honorable fan group, and its members are understandably protective of it. Anyone is of course welcome to join, but I would hate to see it descend into the state of that EBTG group, for a lack of respect for either Thomas or the other Alloy members. My three cents worth. Thanks for indulging me. I'll put away the soap box now. - - Craig ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 04:24:49 -0500 (EST) From: CRACKERS Subject: Alloy: Speaking Of Napster [Part 2] It would seem my enthusiasm on the subject of copyright law lead me on a rather merry rant in my first message but I felt it important that before I speak on such things as Napster that everyone understand what my perspective, as an artist, is on copyright law. So to recap, we just had an essay on how corporations have managed to completely pervert the original spirit and intent of copyright law to protect profits and how they have been able to use their political and financual might to fascilitate this corruption. We also learned why it is that artists are not an effective bunch for bringing about any real political change (at least not compaired to the focused power of a corporate entity). So if we as artists can't effect change to put copyright law back on track then what options are left. Well there's always good old fashioned civil disobedience. Civil disobedience basically means "breaking the law" in order to effect a change for the good. It works under the principle of "you can't put us all in jail". If enough people recognize a law as unjust and they all start openly breaking the law and encouraging others to do so then pretty soon the politicians get the idea that this law isn't such a good idea after all and they'll change the law to maintain the public peace and to maintain justice. Even corporations use civil disobedience only with a slightly different twist. So for those of us who see the perversion of the intent and spirit of copyright law as an offence and injustice our form of civil disobedience might be to share files on Napster. Likewise for corporations civil disobedience is a powerful tool for effecting change. For example, for Coca Cola who saw labour laws and unions in Guatamala as an offence and injustice (read: threat to profits) civil disobedience took place in the form of murdering unionists. So you can see that civil disobedience can be employed in varying degrees of intensity and severity. But at least by sharing files on Napster we don't have blood on our hands. Now it's all fine and well to try to take on corporations and governments because they're both very big, very powerful, and very faceless. But sometimes individuals can get caught in the crossfire. Thomas Dolby is not only one such individual, but he is also a man and an artist that I greatly respect. And as an individual, Thomas himself has asked us not to share his files on Napster. Thomas, not some recording industry conglomerate but Thomas Dolby Robertson the man and the artist has asked us not to share his work on Napster. I think I've made my position perfectly clear on the issue of copyright. I am a person who has no love what-so-ever for copyright laws as they currently exist and I would rather see them completely abolished than to suffer them in their current form even though that would have a financual effect on me as an artist. So strong and deep is my contempt for copyright laws in their current form that I would be willing to make such a sacrifice. Of course I'd prefer even more to simply see copyright laws completely rewritten to uphold the original intent and spirit but the point is it should be evident to everyone that I, as an artist, hate current copyright laws. I want this point to be perfectly clear before I say what I'm about to say. Don't share Thomas' works on Napster, people. The man has come to us as an individual, as a person, as a peer, and he has asked us not to share his works on Napster. Respect that people. He didn't send a team of lawyers out to ream us. He didn't pay politicians large sums of money to violate us. He asked us as a person not to share his work on Napster. I don't know exactly what the extent of Thomas' opinions are on Napster but I respect him as an artist and I am sure that to him his hatred and contempt of Napster is as just and resonable as my hatred and contempt of current copyright laws are to me. I respect the man, I respect the artist, and even if it could be I might not agree with it I respect his opinion. I don't share any of Thomas' works on Napster. I won't even share the "Project B-Day" covers I recorded on Napster unless Thomas himself says that's okay. So if a person such as myself, with such a strong and passionate distaste for current copyright laws can see clear to respect the personal request of Thomas Dolby not to share his works on Napster then cannot all of us, his loyal fans, also see clear to respect that personal request? There... I've said it. I feel better now. Chris "Crackers" Cracknell ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 04:46:09 -0500 (EST) From: CRACKERS Subject: Alloy: Aww for crap's sakes! Arrrghhh... the first (and most empassioned) part of my Napster Essay seems to have evaporated someone on the net. And of course so moved to write was I that I wrote the damn thing imediately in PINE instead of taking the time to construct my missive with my OLMR, thus ensuring that I don't have a copy of it should something happen to it enroute. Fuck I really hate computers sometimes. CRACKERS (One of those weeks from hell!!) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 05:26:06 -0500 (EST) From: CRACKERS Subject: Alloy: And another thing... Okay, I've (almost) established my views on copyright (first part of my rant seems to have been eaten before making it to Alloy). I, personally, do not care if people share my work. Infact, I was rather flattered when I logged onto Napster to see that people were sharing my songs on it before I even got there. All I ask is that if you share my works you do the following things: 1) Don't charge people money for it. To paraphrase from the New Testament, "You recieved without paying, so don't charge to give." 2) Don't alter my work without clearly stating in the new work that it is an altered copy of the original and if possible what exactly those alterations are. 3) Always be sure to credit me with the creation of the work and, if altered, the creation of the original work. Three simple things. That's all I ask and then as far as I'm concerned my art belongs to the world. I don't care what the work in question is. It might be something really crappy. It might be something really stupid. It might not even be a work that I'm particularily proud of. That's not important. All I ask is that you follow those three rules and you can feel free to distribute a million copies of the work for all I care. But whatever you do, above all else, DON'T TAKE CREDIT FOR MY WORK!!!!!! To me, taking credit for something I created is even worse than if you simply neglect to credit me with the creation in the first place. For some time I've been gooding around on a chatroom called AGNPH with a bunch of crazy people, guitar in hand, writing increadably stupid "off-the-cuff" songs about the users in the chatroom and little jokes we share. They're not great works of art, they wern't meant to be. It was just me having a joke with some friends. Turns out these jokes were being shared on Napster. Well that's cool if someone else out there is able to take some enjoyment from these little jokes then they can help themselves. Just follow the three rules and everybody has fun. One thing I still don't understand is the "99 Bottles Of Beer" phenominon. Possibly one of the crappiest recordings I've ever made has been the MP3 "Ghastly (of AGNPH) - 99 Bottles Of Beer On The Wall.mp3". In a week 25 people have downloaded it off me. It has become a ritual of mine, when I log onto Napster to do a search for "agnph" to see how many people have a copy of one of my stupid little "Ghastly (of AGNPH)" songs. One night I was currious as to how many people were on my server at that moment who had a copy of the "99 bottles of beer" MP3. So I did a search for "99 Bottles" and it turned out that at that particular moment there were 35 people who had a copy of the "Ghastly (of AGNPH)" version of 99 bottles and 6 who had a copy of the "Crackers (techno dance mix)" version. The MP3s are multiplying like virii of their own accord it would seem and I am completely powerless to come up with an explanation of why this song (possibly the single most stupid thing I've ever recorded) is so strangely popular. One theory put forward to me by a bandmate is that the current Rodger's Cable Ineternet commercials on TV have something to do with it (the commercial features people sitting infront of their slow modem connections waiting for a file to download and singing 99 bottles of beer. The song expands into a world wide chorus of people singing 99 bottles of beer.) In any case I also noticed a number of other artists with songs titled "99 Bottles Of Beer". None of them, of course went so far as to record themselves singing the entire 99 bottles worth of the song as I had except for one curious file titled "SILVIO - 99 Bottles Of Beer On The Wall.mp3". What was very curious about this file is it was the exact same length, same bitrate, and same file size as the "Ghastly (of AGNPH)" version. A quick partial download revealed it to be my file renamed. So I politely instant messaged the person with the file (a "Pino_D_19") and informed him there was an error in the name of the file and that the song should be credited to "Ghastly (of AGNPH)" and not "SILVIO". In response Pino told me to "fuck off" and put me on ignore. So after complaining about this fellow to my friends in the AGNPH chatroom a dozen or so of them also IMed Pino to explain the error, all were likewise told to "fuck off" and were put on ignore. The only person who got more than a "fuck off" out of Pino was a female chatter. And the only reson she got more out of him was because Pino was hoping to convince her to "cyber" with him. Pino told her that the file in question was recorded by him and his younger brother Silvio and that I had stolen the credit for the file from them (even though I clearly give my name in the narrative of the song as Ghastly, as well as the URL for my webpage). Oh well. What can you do? Well if you're a musician you can always do what I did. Write a little song aptly titled "Ghastly (of AGNPH) - Pino D 19 You Dumb Fuck.mp3" and put it in your napster folder. It's not much but it's therapudic in a way. In anycase, if you'd like to help me in my battle with Pino_D_19 please download a copy of this song, and even if you don't listen to my extremely vulgar and impolite spleen venting (there are a lot of bad words in this song, folks) then at least keep a copy of this song in your Napster folder. As well. If you should happen to see Pino_D_19 on Napster, please feel free to Instant Message him and tell him what a miserable little puke he is for trying to take credit for one of my songs, no matter how crappy that song may be. Thanks! CRACKERS (He's made it to my enemies list from hell!!!) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 10:43:00 -0300 From: "PAULO GONZALEZ" Subject: Re: Alloy: to jon I would like to say that it wasn't me that me that wrote "screw up for us". It was in Jon's e-mail. You all recieve all e-mails, so check it out! I also would like to thank the e-mail I receive (particularly) supporting me (outside alloy's normal e-mail). Of course I will not mention names because everybody here will think of "betrayal". I also receive a particular e-mail scolding me. Of course I will not mention names because it is PARTICULAR e-mail. I'd like to say that I wasn't rude to anyone in the first place. There are ways to say that my behaviour did not fit Thomas Dolby's wishes, but your nastyness is not it. I only asked if someone could e-mail me a soundtrack that everybody had DOWNLOADED with the consent of Thomas Dolby and then, all of a sudden, I became a copyright criminal! Hey! I am a member of alloy as you are. The only difference is that I live far away and I am a newcomer. I read all the e-mails I receive, but had never posted one. So I decided to post that damned one. I am sorry for offending everybody's integrity. In my original e-mail I told my dificullties of finding Thomas Dolby material here in my country (please remember that I am refering to the the 80's / An not even in the 90's I had a computer to find some items through internet. By the way: I wish to warn everybody that I lost 400 american dolars in the site energy.music.com with Thomas material: they debited my credicard account and I never received the records. That happened half year ago when I bought through my cousin'computer) They even sent an e-mail telling that they did not post the package by mistake, and were still trying to find the items - but my account had already been debited). To this day I am still waiting for the records ( and I will wait forever, or I know I won't receive them}. I got a computer in the tail end of 2000 ( though someone, throught a particular e-mail, said I was lying) that's all til next time Paulo ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 03:32:28 -0500 (EST) From: CRACKERS Subject: Alloy: Speaking of Napster.... Okee dokee.... Everyone knows by now my feelings on copyright law and how the original spirit of the law has been completely reamed by corporate greed, particularily in the United States where you people were not long ago double gang-banged by the corpses of Walt Disney and Sonny Bono. I think there's something fundamentally wrong with the world when I can develope a drug or medical device that will save hundreds of thousands of lives and only receive 25 years intellectual property protection yet I can make fart sounds into a microphone and record them and they will still be protected long after I've become worm dung. Copyright laws were designed to give the creator of a work a LIMITED monopoly on the works they created but that wasn't WHY copyright laws were created. That was the means by which the intent of the copyright laws were carried out. The reason WHY copyright laws were created was to increase the number of created works available to the public. Back in the early 1920s it was very expensive to create and publish a work. In order to encourage artists to take on the task of overcoming the physical and financual obstacles that stood in the way of publishing laws were created to give them a limited monopoly on their work so that they could control and profit from the fruits of their efforts. They had 26 years of intellectual property protection if they wanted more then they damn well had to create more works. This was a win-win situation. Artists got a monopoly to financually benefit from their works as well as the encouragement to make more works. The public not only got to enjoy the works of the artist while they were under protection but they also got unfettered access to these works when they fell into the public domain in 26 years. Human greed is most likely the most powerful force in the universe. It can motivate people who might otherwise be content to mearly swing from trees and eat fruit to build great empires (usually at the expense of those who are content to mearly swing from trees and eat fruit). Corporations are collections of human beings who are brought together for the good of their common greed. A corporation acts like a lense that focuses and amplifies the power of human greed while at the same time depersonalizing the process so that obnoxious little things like moral responsibility and conscience don't get in the way of making a buck. This is what lets the executives at the company what makes our shoes and our sporting equipment sleep at night when they rape the children of the third world to bring us "big savings" and their stock holders "big profits". This is what lets DeBeers slaughter children in Africa so they can continue to tell us that if you don't spend 2 months of your salary on a piece of sparkling glass your marrage is doomed to failure and your wife will stop performing oral sex on you. This is what lets British Petrolium, Shell, Exxon, and Texaco carry out campaigns of genocide against the indiginous peoples of other countries while at the same time selling us all a product that is most effectively poisoning the entire planet. This is what lets the executives and employees of these companies alike; from lowly Johnny Lunchbox who bravely keeps the wheels turning; to the former SAS officer now turned "security consultant" whose job it is to teach the army of some third world nation how to effectively kill their own people to protect profits which are in turn used by that third world nation to buy more weapons to not only kill its own people but the people in any country neighbouring them (because you can only kill your own people for so long before you start running out of people to kill); to the CEO who sits back and smokes his cigars and calls the shots and keeps the stock holders happy. They can all wash their hands clean at the sink labeled "I'm only doing my job." When that kind of force had it's attention focused on the profits of the art world... well, that's when art got royally reamed. The corporate entity could approach the artist, give them some shiney beads and firewater, then walk away with their intellectual properties and a nice little 26 year monopoly on them. The only problem with this is that while 26 years is a pretty long chunk of time for a human being, what with our finite lifetimes and all, 26 years really isn't a lot of time to a corporate empire which can continue to survive so long as it is in the black. No problem really. We'll just lobby the "powers that be" and little by little convince them to extend that LIMITED monopoly and before you know it, we'll be owning things for a century or more. Now we have a system that will only give me a 25 year patent on a medical device but will give a corporation 98 years for any faceless works they might create or "life+75" for any works they can screw an identifiable creator out of (and if you screw them young and if they live a long time that can give you one hell of a long LIMITED monopoly). Now you might say "Well wouldn't the obvious solution to this problem be to give patents longer protections to equal things out?" The answer is no. There is a very good reason why patents are only given 25 years of protection and that is because the entire technology industry depends on being able to build upon itself. If technology patents lasted over a century like copyrights now can then then the technological industries would stagnate and we'd all stil be using vaccuume tubes. Infact, 25 years of protection can seriously screw up the development of new technologies which is why there are a number of loopholes in patent law that will allow people to work around the restrictions on technology protection. You see sometimes laws are put in place for the "common good" just like copyright laws were when they were first created. Now the corporations that focus on feeding off the works of artists have managed to convince politicians (by convince I mean "give large political contributions") that the public domain is an evil, evil thing from which only bland and stale works can ever spring. If they want the public to continue to enjoy new creative works then they had better ensure that no works ever fall into the public domain (which is why over the next 19 years no works will expire into the public domain in the United States thanks to the Sony Bono act). I argue that this attitude is pure and simple bullshit. Art, like technology, does not just survive through the spontainious creation of the new and original. Art also survives by feeding off itself in the form of "inspiration". I find it most ironic that a company such as Disney whose library of created works for the most part are spawned by stories from the public domain (Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, Cinderella, Pinochio, etc.) was able to convince the "powers that be" that the public domain is an evil things and counter productive to the creation of new works. So as you can see, copyright law as it exists today is no longer about encouraging new works. It's no longer about increasing the number of works in the public domain. Indeed, if corporations like Disney are able to lobby politicians to extend copyright protection any time their "intellectual properties" (read: profits) are threatened then this 19 year dry spell where no works will fall into the public domain can easily become a 40 year dry spell, then a 60 year dry spell, then an 80 year... well you get the point. Little by little the intent and spirit of copyright law has been completely perverted by corporations who have convinced artists that its for their own good. The only solution I see is to completely rewrite our copyright laws and return them to their true purpose: to increase the number of created works available to the public. Now the problem with taking on a task as big as dismanteling and rebuilding copyright protection is that it requires a large, focused effort and a hell of a lot of money to buy the politicians to do it. Corporations have a lot of both. Artists do not. Artists are individuals, Corporations are not. And you would have a great deal more success herding cats than you would ever have getting a bunch of artists focused on one task because I'll be the first to admit we're a god damned flightly bunch of individuals who are easily distracted by our own creative energies. We can't pull together even when it's for our own collective good. Not only that, but when you get a bunch of artists together you can damned well bet that you're going to run into a battle of the egos. This is not to say that all artists are egotistical, but any artist who would take on the task of organizing and focusing such an effort would have to have a strong ego and there would be so much ego conflict amoungst the upper ranks of any such organization of artists that it would splinter apart under the stress. So lack of leadership and lack of focus are the biggest threats to an effort to ever return equalibrium to the copyright laws. So what else can be done? Well stay tuned for part two. Chris "Crackers" Cracknell ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 14:51:29 -0500 From: "Robin" Subject: Re: Alloy: Aww for crap's sakes! Hey Crackers, The first part of your msg didn't go through because of its length (it's standard on our server to bounce any message longer than 7000 characters) but I've just forwarded it through for you. It'll be a little out of order chronologically in the digest but still makes for a good read! xxxxx Robin T - ----- Original Message ----- From: "CRACKERS" To: Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 4:46 AM Subject: Alloy: Aww for crap's sakes! > > Arrrghhh... the first (and most empassioned) part of my Napster Essay > seems to have evaporated someone on the net. And of course so moved to > write was I that I wrote the damn thing imediately in PINE instead of > taking the time to construct my missive with my OLMR, thus ensuring that I > don't have a copy of it should something happen to it enroute. > > Fuck I really hate computers sometimes. > > CRACKERS > (One of those weeks from hell!!) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 15:04:50 -0500 From: "Robin" Subject: Re: Alloy: FEVER PITCH SOUNDTRACK Craig, I'm very humbled and flattered by your words of support!! Not everyone has shared your enthusiasm for me being Alloy's manager from time to time over the years, heaven knows, but I'm grateful to know you care for me, Mr Spencer ~blush~ Thanks for making my day :) xxxxxx Robin T - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 1:51 AM Subject: Re: Alloy: FEVER PITCH SOUNDTRACK > > In a message dated 3/3/01 11:39:10 AM Central Standard Time, > rthurlow@worldshare.net writes: > > << Thanks for your comments Craig! it's nice to be able to have a discussion > of such things and have our opinions heard :) > >> > > I quite agree! It's always fun for me to bat around a few ideas and > viewpoints, particularly with someone as passionate, intelligent and > articulate as yourself. Alloy is lucky to have you at the helm. =) > > - Craig ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 15:34:06 -0500 From: "Robin" Subject: Re: Alloy: to jon Paulo, it's quite all right. You are a new member and because of this you aren't familiar with the manner of our usual discussions here. One thing that never fails to impress me is that our membership can have discussions about some pretty volatile subjects, such as politics etc, and express passionate opinions while remaining very civil. This is unique on the internet, believe me! So please understand that when people disagree with you, they aren't automatically being 'nasty', they're just stating their feelings and being honest with you There's no need to attack or to feel as if you're being attacked. The person who emailed you privately also CC'd me on it (as the person kindly explained to you in the email) so I know what was said. This individual wanted to email you privately so as to avoid embarrassing you with anything brought up in the note. It was not nasty, or rude, or obscene, or violent, or anything else which might be thought of as objectionable or contrary to the expected manner of conduct amongst Alloy's members. As in any community there are those who will agree with you and those who will disagree. This is to be expected and encouraged. Your desire to get the Fever Pitch music - in spite of knowing of Thomas' wishes to not have it emailed - was a pretty controversial and inflammatory thing, you have to admit... so you have to expect people to react with some well-deserved, pretty strong opinions either way based on what they believe. So just take the inevitable backlash and please stop feeling sorry for yourself over it. It all balances out in the end either way. Peace everyone, xxxxx Robin T off to play in the snowstorm - ----- Original Message ----- From: "PAULO GONZALEZ" To: Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 8:43 AM Subject: Re: Alloy: to jon > I also would like to thank the e-mail I receive (particularly) supporting > me (outside alloy's normal e-mail). Of course I will not mention names > because everybody here will think of "betrayal". > I also receive a particular e-mail scolding me. Of course I will not > mention names because it is PARTICULAR e-mail. > > I'd like to say that I wasn't rude to anyone in the first place. There are > ways to say that my behaviour did not fit Thomas Dolby's wishes, but your > nastyness is not it. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 15:37:18 -0600 From: "Julie Sweeney" Subject: Alloy: Re: alloy-digest V6 #55 May I suggest a bit of perspective? Myself, I read Paolo's post as the impassioned plea of a truly disappointed fan. In no way do I think it warranted the flaming Jon gave it, nor does it deserve to be cast as a "direct threat" to anything that's been built at Alloy. Get the file "at all costs"? Really... what's he gonna do? He's sitting at the receiving end, remember? If no one emails it, he doesn't get it, period. Just like the rest of us who didn't get the original file. What's he gonna do? Fly to the States and hold a gun to someone's head, while they upload it to Napster? Perspective... Julie standing ready to be flamed or otherwise lectured on artistic integrity, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 16:35:47 -0600 From: "Julie Sweeney" Subject: Alloy: Re: alloy-digest V6 #55 And, *Paulo*, please allow me to apologize for calling you "Paolo" in my first post today. Not only do we flame you unnecessarily, but we can't even get your name right. Sorry!! Julie the more reasonable (generally) of the two Sweeneys on this list ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 17:37:08 -0500 (EST) From: CRACKERS Subject: Re: Alloy: Speaking of Napster.... Woohoooo... my first part of the message arrived. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 17:39:07 -0500 (EST) From: CRACKERS Subject: Re: Alloy: Aww for crap's sakes! On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Robin wrote: > > Hey Crackers, > > The first part of your msg didn't go through because of its length (it's > standard on our server to bounce any message longer than 7000 characters) > but I've just forwarded it through for you. It'll be a little out of order > chronologically in the digest but still makes for a good read! Thanks. The first part of the message really sets up the second part. ------------------------------ Date: Sunday, March 04, 2001 6:02 PM From: "Damien Sweeney" Subject: RE: Alloy: Way to go Jon - give 'em hell! Jon, Thank God there are people like you on this list! Imagine the nerve of some people - asking for a Dolby file on a Dolby list! I think we should treat all new people on Alloy the way you treated Paulo - you know - show them what we are all about here! I'm sure Thomas is bursting his buttons to have such vigilant, reasonable, defenders as the likes of you. This list is incestuous enough and hard enough to break into without you having to FLAME new members with such a self righteous and boot licking tone. Your post was insulting and assumptive. Telling him to "grow up" and that the "Internet does not mean that you can have whatever you want with no responsibility" and "Don't screw this up for the rest of us". Are you serious? This is the language that you save for the guy who DOES screw it up. Not for a new member with questions. We are all deeply sorry that you did not get your copy (I've personally been losing sleep over it every night)- but in the words of an distinguished, sensitive Alloy member - "Tough Shit!". Don't take it out on others. Expressing an interest in Thomas' work and wishing for a copy does NOT disrespect his wishes. Making a copy and distributing it does. Paulo did not make and distribute a copy. He asked a question. That being said, I too will not E-mail my copy of Fever Pitch to anyone - and will of course respect Tom's wishes (without all the fanfare). But - is it so unreasonable for a new, unfamiliar member to think/ask that? Considering: #1 - Thomas did post it for all Alloy members. #2 He did extend the time it was available because some people could not get to it because of holiday plans - he wanted people - on Alloy - to enjoy this. Did Thomas ONLY want it to go to people who were members of Alloy at that moment in time? Forever? I dunno.. Let's ask Thomas. Is it so wrong to ASK!!?? Especially if you are new to the list and don't KNOW! Christ ... I pity the poor slob who comes to your house to borrow a cup of sugar! How dare they demand it! To Arms! My Sword! Off with his head! Release the Krakon! No more caffeine for you big guy. Damien - A new member once myself. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 18:28:39 -0500 From: "Robin" Subject: Re: Alloy: Way to go Jon - give 'em hell! - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Damien Sweeney" To: alloy@smoe.org Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 6:02 PM Subject: RE: Alloy: Way to go Jon - give 'em hell! > Did Thomas ONLY want it to go to people who were members of Alloy at that moment > in time? Forever? I dunno.. Let's ask Thomas. I did. He doesn't. I would never say or do anything on this list concerning Thomas or his work without first consulting him personally. Robin T ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 19:01:36 -0500 From: "M. R. Jordan" Subject: Alloy: Napster, Fever Pitch, and the Everlasting Gobstopper I'm putting my mostly worthless $0.02 out here. Caveat: I'm not an artist. I'm not a musician. I don't know jack about copyright law except where it concerns my personal experiences with writing. Remember Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory? I feel like, when TMDR sent us the Fever Pitch file as a Christmas gift, it was like Willy Wonka giving each of us assembled an Everlasting Gobstopper and asking us to not hand it over to Sluggsworth. It was something special, something not available to everyone, and something that the artist gave us, saying, "This is just for you. Because I made it and decided to just give it to you as a special gift, please don't share it with everyone." I have no problem with that. The person who made the gift asked the recipients to not take away the specialness of it by letting it go around the world. It's his work. And there's no way in hell I'd offend someone who has been really nice to me by doing exactly the opposite of what he asked. I just hope someone doesn't get irritated enough by this week's exchanges to say, "Hey, just to prove a point, I'm going to send this file off to Timbuktu because I can and damn what the artist thinks." Dang, man - I wanted that Astronauts & Heretics promo item that was on eBay last week - a burlap bag with nifty goodies inside. But, guess what? I was a day late and several dollars short. I wish I coulda shoulda woulda. Right place. Right time. Not this time. Eh, so what? Shit - I wanted to hear Crowded House on their farewell tour, but I couldn't get a ticket. I don't use Napster. I don't think I have a good enough computer or fast enough connect to use it efficiently. Additionally, I don't have the desire to use it, probably because I'm lazy and don't care enough about it. I do make mix tapes for friends - I take CDs that I've bought, and I take a song here and a song there, and I make a mix so that friends can get a taste of what my musical inclinations are. I don't record entire cds for people, except when it is a recording that is now out-of-print (I refer to recording that WERE once available - I'm not talking about things like Fever Pitch). Usually, I'm just hoping to make fans out of friends. I make copies of my cds for me to use in my car. When I was in college, I made tape copies of friends' cds, and I bought bootleg concert tapes at Camden Lock in London. Then, I got over it. I got rid of my bootlegs - seriously. I came to believe that, if I wanted to listen to a recording in its entirety, I should buy it. I think I mentioned this before, but Aimee Mann is doing battle with a company called Hip-Go Records. They have released a compilation cd of what they call Aimee's greatest hits. This cd includes songs that were never meant to be released commercially, including a track that Aimee recorded for a friend who was thinking about using a song of hers in a movie. Now, what kind of shock was that for her to find out that someone took something she made for a friend and gave it to unscrupulous people who are now making money off her! I'd be pissed as hell were I her (and she is, as she said at the last concert I attended.) And I'd be unhappy about trust betrayed. Some musicians get rich. So what? If we clamor for it, they deserve it. Supply and demand, man. Stephen King is rich. I buy his books. He writes well (or at least in a way many people suck up like liquid gold) and we buy. Some people write music or books for fun, for joy, for whatever (and it must be wonderful to have such financial independence to do that) - some do it because that's the skill they're good at and do it not only because they enjoy it, but to make money, pay rent, whatever. I just had the misfortune of finding out that the magazine that was to feature a series of my travel stories has folded, except for a web presence. The magazine still wanted my stuff, for which they were going to pay me several hundred dollars, but, as a webzine, they wanted them for free. I called bullshit on that one. I had to fight to get my stuff back before they zapped it out around the world without paying me and without my permission for a "voluntary contribution" to their art. You see, had my articles been published out on the 'Net for free, no print journal would take them. Wow - was I ever pissed off by the brazen attitude of this magazine that, since I'd shown an interest in being published and sent them my pieces under the understanding I would be paid, that I'd still love to share my work with the whole world for free. Sorry. Un-huh. No way. My gifts. My talents. MY right to say how, when, and why my words are disseminated. Stephen King recently tried an experiment in allowing readers to download his latest work, requiring them to pay for the installment of his work. Guess what? A lot of people were too damn cheap to pay for it and ruined it for the honest folks out there. Honor system fails. Stephen King stops the great experiment. My sister Betsi was a tremendously talented visual artist in high school - - good enough that an advertising firm offered to hire her. She presented her portfolio to a member of the firm's design team, and, within days, she found out he'd presented her stuff as his own. She is now 41, and she has refused to pick up pen, pencil, or paper for decades. It makes me sad. I think some of my ideas will lose me a friend or two here today. For the record, when I disagree with a member of Alloy, I e-mail him or her privately, copying, if I feel it necessary, the list owner, so she is not blindsided by anything. I learned my lesson after I said something snotty, publicly, to a new member many moons ago. That was wrong of me. Now, if I have an issue, I handle it privately, which I have recently done. I expect that if someone has a problem with me, they'll write to me privately, too. Just my opinions. No one has to agree with them. No one has to read them. They're just mine. I'm getting cranky in my old age. I think it's time for me to take another Alloy sabbatical. - - Melissa ------------------------------ End of alloy-digest V6 #56 **************************