Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The History of What My Dog Can't Hear

Expand Messages
  • bordercollieaustralianshepherd
    As always I have stories, but this time I ll just provide links and search terms.. http://www.ascap.com/licensing/ http://www.bmi.com/licensing/?link=navbar
    Message 1 of 23 , Jul 3, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      As always I have stories, but this time I'll just provide links and
      search terms..


      http://www.ascap.com/licensing/

      http://www.bmi.com/licensing/?link=navbar

      http://www.bmi.com/licensing/entry/C1176


      You should be able to find plenty of info using these search terms:
      ASCAP and BMI, ASCAP and BMI and VIOLATIONS, ASCAP and BMI and BAR and
      CLUB.



      > [videoblogging] Re: The History of What My Dog Can't He that:
      > >That is true in Denmark as well. The prices are very reasonable (I just
      > >looked them up) and won't hold any establishment back.
      >
      > ditto in Australia. the agency responsible also redistributes this
      > money to artists on the basis of sales of music and radio station
      > playlists.
      > --
      > cheers
      > Adrian Miles
    • Adam Jochum
      In a live perfomance, the venue pays for the privilege of allowing the musician to perform copyrighted material via ASCAP and BMI membership . If a recording
      Message 2 of 23 , Jul 4, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        In a live perfomance, the venue pays for the privilege of allowing the
        musician to perform copyrighted material via ASCAP and BMI
        'membership'. If a recording is made, the musician pays for the
        privilege of distributing the copyrighted material. Some friends of
        mine in a band who released a live recording are continuously
        grumbling about the royalties on the 'covers' they played in that show.


        Adam Jochum
        cafn8ed.tv


        --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "missbhavens1969"
        <missbhavens1969@...> wrote:
        >
        > Well, I was under the impression that musicians/bands covering a tune
        > for a recording would certainly need permission on the assumption that
        > money would be made from the sale of the album.
        >
        > But every band in every live concert I've ever seen has done at least
        > one cover (always my favorite part of a show...you can't judge a book by
        > it's cover but you CAN judge a band by it's covers) and I can't imagine
        > they sought permission first.
        >
        > Oh well. There must be some sort of "if you're already famous you can do
        > a cover of my famous song" clause.
        >
        > In the meanwhile, I'm going to brush up on my piano skills. I've always
        > wanted to use "Song for a Future Generation" by the B-52s. Perhaps I'll
        > cover that.
        >
        > bekah
        >
        > ps: David, my fiancee informs me that we no longer say "bastard
        > red-headed step children". The more accepted term is "Gingers".
        >
        > ; )
        > --
        > http://www.missbhavens.com
        >
        >
        > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "David Howell" <taoofdavid@>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > Interesting.
        > >
        > > So, all musicians or bands covering a tune must get permission first
        > > or pay fees? Does that include if they cover a song in an encore or
        > > something too?
        > >
        > > Adam's music might have to become my bastard red-haired step children
        > > then.
        > >
        > > David
        > > http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
        > >
        > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen"
        > > solitude@ wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Beware though that the US court system do not agree with the dog
        > > essay.
        > > > Adam did not write most of those songs and thus you will also need
        > to
        > > > secure permission from the composer (or pay ASCAP fees or whatever
        > the
        > > > procedure is for the kind of work you want to make).
        > > >
        > > > Longer reply coming in a day or two when I've had time & energy to
        > > wade
        > > > through the rhetoric analogies in that essay.
        > > >
        > > > - Andreas
        > > >
        > > > Den 02.07.2007 kl. 20:49 skrev David Howell taoofdavid@:
        > > >
        > > > > Excellent. Much appreciated.
        > > > >
        > > > > I'll care for them and treat them as though they were made of the
        > > > > finest crystal. Maybe, on a hot summer evening, I might just call
        > one
        > > > > of them Fred.
        > > > >
        > > > > David
        > > > > http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Adam Quirk, Wreck &
        > Salvage"
        > > > > <quirk@> wrote:
        > > > >>
        > > > >> Free as in liberty and the natural state of man, not price. They
        > > > > actually
        > > > >> cost $4.30 each.
        > > > >>
        > > > >> Them's just jokes. Use em as you see fit. I'd be honored to hear
        > > them in
        > > > >> your video, and those songs aren't mine to sell.
        > > > >>
        > > > >> On 7/2/07, David Howell <taoofdavid@> wrote:
        > > > >> >
        > > > >> > When you say "free lo-fi music by me", is that free as in I can
        > use
        > > > >> > your music without remuneration to you?
        > > > >> >
        > > > >> > Not trying to sound like a prick. I like your tunes and could
        > > find use
        > > > >> > for them in a few videos I have planned.
        > > > >> >
        > > > >> > David
        > > > >> > http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
        > > > >> >
        > > > >> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Adam Quirk, Wreck &
        > Salvage"
        > > > >> > <quirk@> wrote:
        > > > >> > >
        > > > >> > > Back in town, re-reading the Podtech v. Bui thread. I just
        > > want to
        > > > >> > talk a
        > > > >> > > little more about copyright and the "ownership" of art, as I
        > felt
        > > > >> > compelled
        > > > >> > > to scratch Mr. Rice's mosquito bite about being "trollish" ;)
        > I
        > > > >> > don't mean
        > > > >> > > to start an argument here, I just need to understand how
        > > people feel
        > > > >> > about
        > > > >> > > the things they are making, and I want you all to understand
        > how
        > > > > I feel.
        > > > >> > >
        > > > >> > > A friend of mine wrote an essay on music a couple years ago
        > > > > called The
        > > > >> > > History of What My Dog Can't Hear:
        > > > >> > >
        > > > >> > > http://www.geartekcorporation.com/texts/essay2.html
        > > > >> > >
        > > > >> > > The essay is about changing the way we perceive music, and
        > > accepting
        > > > >> > it as
        > > > >> > > something that is not ownable:
        > > > >> > >
        > > > >> > > The ownership or authorship of anything is a deception,
        > > surely. But
        > > > >> > I take
        > > > >> > > > no issue with the ownership of objects in the world, like a
        > > broom
        > > > >> > or a drum
        > > > >> > > > for example. Music however, is a thing not in the world,
        > > and the
        > > > >> > present
        > > > >> > > > deception of its ownability places limits on our
        > > consciousness. My
        > > > >> > > > motivation here is not to sell iPods. If this near biblical
        > > > >> > manifesto-mill
        > > > >> > > > can be accused of having any agenda at all, it is merely to
        > > > > assist an
        > > > >> > > > already rising consciousness. Neither are these paragraphs
        > > > >> > commandments or a
        > > > >> > > > bugle call to what we need to realize or do. We didn't need
        > > to be
        > > > >> > able to
        > > > >> > > > hear tone in music or need to be aware of its color - it's
        > just
        > > > >> > the way
        > > > >> > > > music is happening to us, rising on a path like the moon.
        > Some
        > > > >> > astronomers
        > > > >> > > > can predict the path of the moon, and surely artists are
        > those
        > > > >> > astronomers.
        > > > >> > > > I understand those who are skeptical or scoff at this as
        > > > > pompous and
        > > > >> > > > irrelevant. After all, when you look at the moon, the moon
        > > looks
        > > > >> > still.
        > > > >> > >
        > > > >> > >
        > > > >> > > He feels the same way about music as I do about my videos,
        > and at
        > > > >> > the end he
        > > > >> > > says, EXTRA CREDIT: Re-read this entire essay but replace the
        > > word
        > > > >> > "music"
        > > > >> > > with the word "images."
        > > > >> > >
        > > > >> > > Re-reading it I realized that I unconsciously lifted metaphor
        > > > >> > directly from
        > > > >> > > him. Blatant plagiarism! I've already informed him and a
        > > check is
        > > > >> > in the
        > > > >> > > mail.
        > > > >> > >
        > > > >> > > Because music is a matter of shifting consciousness and not
        > > worldly
        > > > >> > sound, a
        > > > >> > > > person can't claim to own or control music any more than
        > > they can
        > > > >> > claim to
        > > > >> > > > own or control a quadrant of mist over a lake.
        > > > >> > >
        > > > >> > >
        > > > >> > > PS. Here is a free album of amazing midi-synthesizer and
        > > home-made
        > > > >> > > electronic instrument music by the author of that essay:
        > > > >> > > http://www.geartekcorporation.com/slowdudes/slowdudes.html
        > > > >> > >
        > > > >> > > And some free lo-fi music by me:
        > > > >> > > http://standards.bullemhead.com/
        > > > >> > >
        > > > >> > > --
        > > > >> > > Adam Quirk
        > > > >> > > Wreck & Salvage
        > > > >> > > 551.208.4644
        > > > >> > > Brooklyn, NY
        > > > >> > > http://wreckandsalvage.com
        > > > >> > >
        > > > >> > >
        > > > >> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > > >> > >
        > > > >> >
        > > > >> >
        > > > >> >
        > > > >> >
        > > > >> >
        > > > >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > > > >> >
        > > > >> >
        > > > >> >
        > > > >> >
        > > > >>
        > > > >>
        > > > >> --
        > > > >> Adam Quirk
        > > > >> Wreck & Salvage
        > > > >> 551.208.4644
        > > > >> Brooklyn, NY
        > > > >> http://wreckandsalvage.com
        > > > >>
        > > > >>
        > > > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > > >>
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --
        > > > Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
        > > > <URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ >
        > > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • Richard (Show) Hall
        Ok, I m not sure how this has changed since Maureen and I were playing music and recording. Anyway, we recorded one cover song on a CD we made - writer was
        Message 3 of 23 , Jul 4, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Ok, I'm not sure how this has changed since Maureen and I were playing music
          and recording.

          Anyway, we recorded one cover song on a CD we made - writer was ASCP or BMI,
          don't remember which - and the way it worked was that for every CD we sold
          we were to pay him 9 cents or something like that (this was early 90s).

          So, if that is the "royalties" you refer to, at least in our case, seemed
          pretty reasonable.

          I'm not sure how universal this was or what, but we got the info from the
          song writer himself and from a lot of other singer song writers we knew at
          the time, so that was our source for information on what to do - no one
          official.

          Now we give away the one CD we recorded for free and all the songs can be
          downloaded for free at blisshippy.com (not a big deal, and not trying to
          promote our music - there a zillions of much more talented artists on pod
          safe music - archive.org live archives - etc. - where you can get songs to
          play for free with your vlogs).

          But the point with the free part, is I would logically deduce that when we
          give a cover song away - one we perform, ourselves - we don't have to pay
          any royalties.

          So, if I want to have a certain popular song as background, and I'm a
          musician with the ability to play that song myself, I can use it without
          worrying so long as I don't make money off of the song/video. Now, if I do
          make money, not sure what would be equivalent to one CD sold, so, not sure
          how royalty would work.

          I would love to hear comments from someone with more expertise on the
          legalities of using a copy righted cover song that I perform myself in a
          situation where I'm not making money, and I'm distributing widely - is that
          legal to do without paying royalties?

          ... Richard

          On 7/4/07, Adam Jochum <cafn8ed.tv@...> wrote:
          >
          > In a live perfomance, the venue pays for the privilege of allowing the
          > musician to perform copyrighted material via ASCAP and BMI
          > 'membership'. If a recording is made, the musician pays for the
          > privilege of distributing the copyrighted material. Some friends of
          > mine in a band who released a live recording are continuously
          > grumbling about the royalties on the 'covers' they played in that show.
          >
          > Adam Jochum
          > cafn8ed.tv
          >
          > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>,
          > "missbhavens1969"
          >
          > <missbhavens1969@...> wrote:
          > >
          > > Well, I was under the impression that musicians/bands covering a tune
          > > for a recording would certainly need permission on the assumption that
          > > money would be made from the sale of the album.
          > >
          > > But every band in every live concert I've ever seen has done at least
          > > one cover (always my favorite part of a show...you can't judge a book by
          > > it's cover but you CAN judge a band by it's covers) and I can't imagine
          > > they sought permission first.
          > >
          > > Oh well. There must be some sort of "if you're already famous you can do
          > > a cover of my famous song" clause.
          > >
          > > In the meanwhile, I'm going to brush up on my piano skills. I've always
          > > wanted to use "Song for a Future Generation" by the B-52s. Perhaps I'll
          > > cover that.
          > >
          > > bekah
          > >
          > > ps: David, my fiancee informs me that we no longer say "bastard
          > > red-headed step children". The more accepted term is "Gingers".
          > >
          > > ; )
          > > --
          > > http://www.missbhavens.com
          > >
          > >
          > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>,
          > "David Howell" <taoofdavid@>
          > > wrote:
          > > >
          > > > Interesting.
          > > >
          > > > So, all musicians or bands covering a tune must get permission first
          > > > or pay fees? Does that include if they cover a song in an encore or
          > > > something too?
          > > >
          > > > Adam's music might have to become my bastard red-haired step children
          > > > then.
          > > >
          > > > David
          > > > http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
          > > >
          > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>,
          > "Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen"
          > > > solitude@ wrote:
          > > > >
          > > > > Beware though that the US court system do not agree with the dog
          > > > essay.
          > > > > Adam did not write most of those songs and thus you will also need
          > > to
          > > > > secure permission from the composer (or pay ASCAP fees or whatever
          > > the
          > > > > procedure is for the kind of work you want to make).
          > > > >
          > > > > Longer reply coming in a day or two when I've had time & energy to
          > > > wade
          > > > > through the rhetoric analogies in that essay.
          > > > >
          > > > > - Andreas
          > > > >
          > > > > Den 02.07.2007 kl. 20:49 skrev David Howell taoofdavid@:
          > > > >
          > > > > > Excellent. Much appreciated.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > I'll care for them and treat them as though they were made of the
          > > > > > finest crystal. Maybe, on a hot summer evening, I might just call
          > > one
          > > > > > of them Fred.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > David
          > > > > > http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
          > > > > >
          > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com<videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>,
          > "Adam Quirk, Wreck &
          > > Salvage"
          > > > > > <quirk@> wrote:
          > > > > >>
          > > > > >> Free as in liberty and the natural state of man, not price. They
          > > > > > actually
          > > > > >> cost $4.30 each.
          > > > > >>
          > > > > >> Them's just jokes. Use em as you see fit. I'd be honored to hear
          > > > them in
          > > > > >> your video, and those songs aren't mine to sell.
          > > > > >>
          > > > > >> On 7/2/07, David Howell <taoofdavid@> wrote:
          > > > > >> >
          > > > > >> > When you say "free lo-fi music by me", is that free as in I can
          > > use
          > > > > >> > your music without remuneration to you?
          > > > > >> >
          > > > > >> > Not trying to sound like a prick. I like your tunes and could
          > > > find use
          > > > > >> > for them in a few videos I have planned.
          > > > > >> >
          > > > > >> > David
          > > > > >> > http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
          > > > > >> >
          > > > > >> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com<videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>,
          > "Adam Quirk, Wreck &
          > > Salvage"
          > > > > >> > <quirk@> wrote:
          > > > > >> > >
          > > > > >> > > Back in town, re-reading the Podtech v. Bui thread. I just
          > > > want to
          > > > > >> > talk a
          > > > > >> > > little more about copyright and the "ownership" of art, as I
          > > felt
          > > > > >> > compelled
          > > > > >> > > to scratch Mr. Rice's mosquito bite about being "trollish" ;)
          > > I
          > > > > >> > don't mean
          > > > > >> > > to start an argument here, I just need to understand how
          > > > people feel
          > > > > >> > about
          > > > > >> > > the things they are making, and I want you all to understand
          > > how
          > > > > > I feel.
          > > > > >> > >
          > > > > >> > > A friend of mine wrote an essay on music a couple years ago
          > > > > > called The
          > > > > >> > > History of What My Dog Can't Hear:
          > > > > >> > >
          > > > > >> > > http://www.geartekcorporation.com/texts/essay2.html
          > > > > >> > >
          > > > > >> > > The essay is about changing the way we perceive music, and
          > > > accepting
          > > > > >> > it as
          > > > > >> > > something that is not ownable:
          > > > > >> > >
          > > > > >> > > The ownership or authorship of anything is a deception,
          > > > surely. But
          > > > > >> > I take
          > > > > >> > > > no issue with the ownership of objects in the world, like a
          > > > broom
          > > > > >> > or a drum
          > > > > >> > > > for example. Music however, is a thing not in the world,
          > > > and the
          > > > > >> > present
          > > > > >> > > > deception of its ownability places limits on our
          > > > consciousness. My
          > > > > >> > > > motivation here is not to sell iPods. If this near biblical
          > > > > >> > manifesto-mill
          > > > > >> > > > can be accused of having any agenda at all, it is merely to
          > > > > > assist an
          > > > > >> > > > already rising consciousness. Neither are these paragraphs
          > > > > >> > commandments or a
          > > > > >> > > > bugle call to what we need to realize or do. We didn't need
          > > > to be
          > > > > >> > able to
          > > > > >> > > > hear tone in music or need to be aware of its color - it's
          > > just
          > > > > >> > the way
          > > > > >> > > > music is happening to us, rising on a path like the moon.
          > > Some
          > > > > >> > astronomers
          > > > > >> > > > can predict the path of the moon, and surely artists are
          > > those
          > > > > >> > astronomers.
          > > > > >> > > > I understand those who are skeptical or scoff at this as
          > > > > > pompous and
          > > > > >> > > > irrelevant. After all, when you look at the moon, the moon
          > > > looks
          > > > > >> > still.
          > > > > >> > >
          > > > > >> > >
          > > > > >> > > He feels the same way about music as I do about my videos,
          > > and at
          > > > > >> > the end he
          > > > > >> > > says, EXTRA CREDIT: Re-read this entire essay but replace the
          > > > word
          > > > > >> > "music"
          > > > > >> > > with the word "images."
          > > > > >> > >
          > > > > >> > > Re-reading it I realized that I unconsciously lifted metaphor
          > > > > >> > directly from
          > > > > >> > > him. Blatant plagiarism! I've already informed him and a
          > > > check is
          > > > > >> > in the
          > > > > >> > > mail.
          > > > > >> > >
          > > > > >> > > Because music is a matter of shifting consciousness and not
          > > > worldly
          > > > > >> > sound, a
          > > > > >> > > > person can't claim to own or control music any more than
          > > > they can
          > > > > >> > claim to
          > > > > >> > > > own or control a quadrant of mist over a lake.
          > > > > >> > >
          > > > > >> > >
          > > > > >> > > PS. Here is a free album of amazing midi-synthesizer and
          > > > home-made
          > > > > >> > > electronic instrument music by the author of that essay:
          > > > > >> > > http://www.geartekcorporation.com/slowdudes/slowdudes.html
          > > > > >> > >
          > > > > >> > > And some free lo-fi music by me:
          > > > > >> > > http://standards.bullemhead.com/
          > > > > >> > >
          > > > > >> > > --
          > > > > >> > > Adam Quirk
          > > > > >> > > Wreck & Salvage
          > > > > >> > > 551.208.4644
          > > > > >> > > Brooklyn, NY
          > > > > >> > > http://wreckandsalvage.com
          > > > > >> > >
          > > > > >> > >
          > > > > >> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > > > > >> > >
          > > > > >> >
          > > > > >> >
          > > > > >> >
          > > > > >> >
          > > > > >> >
          > > > > >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > > > > >> >
          > > > > >> >
          > > > > >> >
          > > > > >> >
          > > > > >>
          > > > > >>
          > > > > >> --
          > > > > >> Adam Quirk
          > > > > >> Wreck & Salvage
          > > > > >> 551.208.4644
          > > > > >> Brooklyn, NY
          > > > > >> http://wreckandsalvage.com
          > > > > >>
          > > > > >>
          > > > > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > > > > >>
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > --
          > > > > Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
          > > > > <URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ >
          > > > >
          > > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          >
          >
          >



          --
          Richard
          http://richardhhall.org
          Shows
          http://richardshow.org
          http://inspiredhealing.tv


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Rupert
          Music copyright - recorded and performed - is handled in the UK by the MCPS-PRS Alliance. They are experimenting with various different discount schemes for
          Message 4 of 23 , Jul 4, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Music copyright - recorded and performed - is handled in the UK by
            the MCPS-PRS Alliance.

            They are experimenting with various different discount schemes for
            using music in podcasts.

            They had a cheap license last year, I think, which they withdrew.
            They're now planning to re-release it, i think, with all sorts of
            limitations on it like not using the whole song and not using
            bookmarks and show notes to indicate start and end points. And a few
            other more restrictive ones besides.

            The licenses for live venues and for recorded music here have been
            overhauled as part of our government's attempts to legislate
            everything they possibly can as quickly as possible. The Musicians
            Union and other people made a lot of noise about how the new laws
            would kill live music in venues where acts performed only
            occasionally (license is something like £1000 per year, so a country
            pub's got to sell a lot of beer to recover that as a result of the
            occasional weekend band). But I'm not sure what the actual effect
            has been in the end.

            Rupert
            http://twittervlog.tv/




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Rupert
            I took you at you word, even though the word honoured was directed at David: I stole your beautiful rainbow and pasted it over my ugly house :)
            Message 5 of 23 , Jul 7, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              I took you at you word, even though the word honoured was directed at
              David:

              I stole your beautiful rainbow and pasted it over my ugly house :)

              http://twittervlog.tv/?p=153

              Rupert

              On 2 Jul 2007, at 19:38, Adam Quirk, Wreck & Salvage wrote:

              Free as in liberty and the natural state of man, not price. They
              actually
              cost $4.30 each.

              Them's just jokes. Use em as you see fit. I'd be honored to hear them in
              your video, and those songs aren't mine to sell.

              On 7/2/07, David Howell <taoofdavid@...> wrote:
              >
              > When you say "free lo-fi music by me", is that free as in I can use
              > your music without remuneration to you?
              >
              > Not trying to sound like a prick. I like your tunes and could find
              use
              > for them in a few videos I have planned.
              >
              > David
              > http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
              >
              > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Adam Quirk, Wreck & Salvage"
              > <quirk@...> wrote:
              > >
              > > Back in town, re-reading the Podtech v. Bui thread. I just want to
              > talk a
              > > little more about copyright and the "ownership" of art, as I felt
              > compelled
              > > to scratch Mr. Rice's mosquito bite about being "trollish" ;) I
              > don't mean
              > > to start an argument here, I just need to understand how people
              feel
              > about
              > > the things they are making, and I want you all to understand how
              I feel.
              > >
              > > A friend of mine wrote an essay on music a couple years ago
              called The
              > > History of What My Dog Can't Hear:
              > >
              > > http://www.geartekcorporation.com/texts/essay2.html
              > >
              > > The essay is about changing the way we perceive music, and
              accepting
              > it as
              > > something that is not ownable:
              > >
              > > The ownership or authorship of anything is a deception, surely. But
              > I take
              > > > no issue with the ownership of objects in the world, like a broom
              > or a drum
              > > > for example. Music however, is a thing not in the world, and the
              > present
              > > > deception of its ownability places limits on our
              consciousness. My
              > > > motivation here is not to sell iPods. If this near biblical
              > manifesto-mill
              > > > can be accused of having any agenda at all, it is merely to
              assist an
              > > > already rising consciousness. Neither are these paragraphs
              > commandments or a
              > > > bugle call to what we need to realize or do. We didn't need to be
              > able to
              > > > hear tone in music or need to be aware of its color - it's just
              > the way
              > > > music is happening to us, rising on a path like the moon. Some
              > astronomers
              > > > can predict the path of the moon, and surely artists are those
              > astronomers.
              > > > I understand those who are skeptical or scoff at this as
              pompous and
              > > > irrelevant. After all, when you look at the moon, the moon looks
              > still.
              > >
              > >
              > > He feels the same way about music as I do about my videos, and at
              > the end he
              > > says, EXTRA CREDIT: Re-read this entire essay but replace the word
              > "music"
              > > with the word "images."
              > >
              > > Re-reading it I realized that I unconsciously lifted metaphor
              > directly from
              > > him. Blatant plagiarism! I've already informed him and a check is
              > in the
              > > mail.
              > >
              > > Because music is a matter of shifting consciousness and not worldly
              > sound, a
              > > > person can't claim to own or control music any more than they can
              > claim to
              > > > own or control a quadrant of mist over a lake.
              > >
              > >
              > > PS. Here is a free album of amazing midi-synthesizer and home-made
              > > electronic instrument music by the author of that essay:
              > > http://www.geartekcorporation.com/slowdudes/slowdudes.html
              > >
              > > And some free lo-fi music by me:
              > > http://standards.bullemhead.com/
              > >
              > > --
              > > Adam Quirk
              > > Wreck & Salvage
              > > 551.208.4644
              > > Brooklyn, NY
              > > http://wreckandsalvage.com
              > >
              > >
              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >

              --
              Adam Quirk
              Wreck & Salvage
              551.208.4644
              Brooklyn, NY
              http://wreckandsalvage.com

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • bordercollieaustralianshepherd
              Eat faster, Drink quick, Move along, nothing to hear here any more. Without a special license, owners of bars, clubs and restaurants could be sued for playing
              Message 6 of 23 , Aug 1, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Eat faster, Drink quick, Move along, nothing to hear here any more.

                "Without a special license, owners of bars, clubs and restaurants could be sued for playing
                any one of 8 million recorded songs, even from their own CDs.

                The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) says that equates to
                performing copyrighted music without permission, and the group is going after local
                businesses that haven't paid them for the privilege."
                more: <http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/
                2003815486_royalty01.html>

                --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Adam Quirk, Wreck & Salvage" <quirk@...>
                wrote:

                >
                > A friend of mine wrote an essay on music a couple years ago called The
                > History of What My Dog Can't Hear:
                >
                > http://www.geartekcorporation.com/texts/essay2.html
                >
                > The essay is about changing the way we perceive music, and accepting it as
                > something that is not ownable:
                >
                > The ownership or authorship of anything is a deception, surely. But I take
                > > no issue with the ownership of objects in the world, like a broom or a drum
                > > for example. Music however, is a thing not in the world, and the present
                > > deception of its ownability places limits on our consciousness.
              • Steve Watkins
                Heres a tinyurl to the story you posted: http://tinyurl.com/3bzguo I dont think its a new law though is it, just another wave of make an example of them to
                Message 7 of 23 , Aug 1, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Heres a tinyurl to the story you posted: http://tinyurl.com/3bzguo

                  I dont think its a new law though is it, just another wave of 'make an
                  example of them to get others to comply, throw the book at them' type
                  stuff?

                  Added together these sorts of extra costs can make it hard for the
                  smaller venues to survive, if they arent too profitable to start with.
                  But its something Im sure most businesses are used to paying, I think
                  in the UK that most companies accept they have to pay such things, or
                  they try to avoid it until they are first approached, and then they
                  cough up the moolah rather than having to suffer any further hassle.

                  I dont expect anybody that makes a stand in the courts to win, as I
                  think the laws are pretty well established regarding public
                  performance rights, but maybe Im wrong.

                  Like when I was a kid, when they played videos at school the
                  smallprint always mentioned that the video was not licensed for
                  display at public events, in schools etc. I always wondered if the
                  schools paid a blanket fee, or some higher authority covered it on
                  their behalf, or whether they were being naughty and ignoring such things.

                  As that article's quotes from people show, the majority dont really
                  buy into the concept tat when they buy music or films or whatever,
                  they dont own them, they are just given rights to do certain things
                  with them. Its a tricky one, companies are spending lots of money
                  trying to 'educate the public' that things like mp3 downloading are
                  the same as stealing CDs from a music shop. Theres a really dreadful
                  advert on UK TV at the moment that tries to make a social taboo out of
                  buying pirate DVDs and such things, equating it to a bloke who gives
                  his girlfriend a ring he found in the street, what a cheapskate, hate
                  him, hate him. Meanwhile research suggests that the UK is a world
                  leader in terms of people buying dodgy fake goods.

                  What I really object to is when I buy a legit DVD and then every time
                  I stick it in the drive I am forced to watch a short piece about how
                  evil copied DVDs are. Great, punish me for having the legit version!

                  If In 25 years it is the trend for people to gather at venues wher
                  videoblogs are played on giant screens, would videobloggers think this
                  was commercial use and that they are entitled to some small cut? Thats
                  when the issues can get interesting, as otherwise its too easy to side
                  with freedom.

                  At this point my own philosophy is settling on the total respect for
                  whtaever the particular content cretor wants. If theyve signed up to a
                  system that uses draconian methods, more fool them in the long run. If
                  they want all media to be free and believe in a true creative commons
                  of works, then hoorah. If they believe in something else then I'll
                  respect that too, though I personally have a special place in my heart
                  for those who want to push freedom further than most.

                  Cheers

                  Steve Elbows

                  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "bordercollieaustralianshepherd"
                  <bordercollieaustralianshepherd@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Eat faster, Drink quick, Move along, nothing to hear here any more.
                  >
                  > "Without a special license, owners of bars, clubs and restaurants
                  could be sued for playing
                  > any one of 8 million recorded songs, even from their own CDs.
                  >
                  > The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP)
                  says that equates to
                  > performing copyrighted music without permission, and the group is
                  going after local
                  > businesses that haven't paid them for the privilege."
                  > more: <http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/
                  > 2003815486_royalty01.html>
                  >
                • Adam Quirk, Wreck & Salvage
                  ... No. At this point my own philosophy is settling on the total respect for ... Me too... I have a special place in my heart for those who want to push
                  Message 8 of 23 , Aug 1, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >
                    > If In 25 years it is the trend for people to gather at venues wher
                    > videoblogs are played on giant screens, would videobloggers think this
                    > was commercial use and that they are entitled to some small cut?


                    No.

                    At this point my own philosophy is settling on the total respect for
                    > whtaever the particular content cretor wants. If theyve signed up to a
                    > system that uses draconian methods, more fool them in the long run. If
                    > they want all media to be free and believe in a true creative commons
                    > of works, then hoorah. If they believe in something else then I'll
                    > respect that too, though I personally have a special place in my heart
                    > for those who want to push freedom further than most.


                    Me too... I have a special place in my heart for those who want to push
                    anything farther than most. Creativity, freedom, even obscenity (for fuck's
                    sake). One of the biggest misses in videoblogging is the lack of people
                    pushing limits, and I don't exclude myself.

                    The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who
                    really know where it is are the ones who have gone over.
                    Hunter S. Thompson


                    --
                    Adam Quirk
                    Wreck & Salvage
                    551.208.4644
                    Brooklyn, NY
                    http://wreckandsalvage.com


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Ron Watson
                    Perhaps we need a personal information contract that we could supply to corporations that says , You don t own this information, you just have the rights to
                    Message 9 of 23 , Aug 1, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Perhaps we need a personal information contract that we could supply
                      to corporations that says ,"You don't own this information, you just
                      have the rights to use it for your personal records."

                      If enough of the market were on board, they'd have to deal with it.

                      I'm tired of them exploiting us.

                      Cheers,

                      Ron Watson

                      Pawsitive Vybe
                      11659 Berrigan Ave
                      Cedar Springs, MI 49319
                      http://pawsitivevybe.com

                      Personal Contact:
                      616.802.8923
                      k9disc@...

                      On the Web:
                      http://pawsitivevybe.com
                      http://k9disc.com
                      http://k9disc.blip.tv


                      On Aug 1, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Steve Watkins wrote:

                      > Heres a tinyurl to the story you posted: http://tinyurl.com/3bzguo
                      >
                      > I dont think its a new law though is it, just another wave of 'make an
                      > example of them to get others to comply, throw the book at them' type
                      > stuff?
                      >
                      > Added together these sorts of extra costs can make it hard for the
                      > smaller venues to survive, if they arent too profitable to start with.
                      > But its something Im sure most businesses are used to paying, I think
                      > in the UK that most companies accept they have to pay such things, or
                      > they try to avoid it until they are first approached, and then they
                      > cough up the moolah rather than having to suffer any further hassle.
                      >
                      > I dont expect anybody that makes a stand in the courts to win, as I
                      > think the laws are pretty well established regarding public
                      > performance rights, but maybe Im wrong.
                      >
                      > Like when I was a kid, when they played videos at school the
                      > smallprint always mentioned that the video was not licensed for
                      > display at public events, in schools etc. I always wondered if the
                      > schools paid a blanket fee, or some higher authority covered it on
                      > their behalf, or whether they were being naughty and ignoring such
                      > things.
                      >
                      > As that article's quotes from people show, the majority dont really
                      > buy into the concept tat when they buy music or films or whatever,
                      > they dont own them, they are just given rights to do certain things
                      > with them. Its a tricky one, companies are spending lots of money
                      > trying to 'educate the public' that things like mp3 downloading are
                      > the same as stealing CDs from a music shop. Theres a really dreadful
                      > advert on UK TV at the moment that tries to make a social taboo out of
                      > buying pirate DVDs and such things, equating it to a bloke who gives
                      > his girlfriend a ring he found in the street, what a cheapskate, hate
                      > him, hate him. Meanwhile research suggests that the UK is a world
                      > leader in terms of people buying dodgy fake goods.
                      >
                      > What I really object to is when I buy a legit DVD and then every time
                      > I stick it in the drive I am forced to watch a short piece about how
                      > evil copied DVDs are. Great, punish me for having the legit version!
                      >
                      > If In 25 years it is the trend for people to gather at venues wher
                      > videoblogs are played on giant screens, would videobloggers think this
                      > was commercial use and that they are entitled to some small cut? Thats
                      > when the issues can get interesting, as otherwise its too easy to side
                      > with freedom.
                      >
                      > At this point my own philosophy is settling on the total respect for
                      > whtaever the particular content cretor wants. If theyve signed up to a
                      > system that uses draconian methods, more fool them in the long run. If
                      > they want all media to be free and believe in a true creative commons
                      > of works, then hoorah. If they believe in something else then I'll
                      > respect that too, though I personally have a special place in my heart
                      > for those who want to push freedom further than most.
                      >
                      > Cheers
                      >
                      > Steve Elbows
                      >
                      > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "bordercollieaustralianshepherd"
                      > <bordercollieaustralianshepherd@...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Eat faster, Drink quick, Move along, nothing to hear here any more.
                      > >
                      > > "Without a special license, owners of bars, clubs and restaurants
                      > could be sued for playing
                      > > any one of 8 million recorded songs, even from their own CDs.
                      > >
                      > > The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP)
                      > says that equates to
                      > > performing copyrighted music without permission, and the group is
                      > going after local
                      > > businesses that haven't paid them for the privilege."
                      > > more: <http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/
                      > > 2003815486_royalty01.html>
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      >



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Adrian Miles
                      around the 1/8/07 Steve Watkins mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: ... you re right, old law. as discussed here recently, in Australia this been the norm for
                      Message 10 of 23 , Aug 1, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        around the 1/8/07 Steve Watkins mentioned about [videoblogging] Re:
                        Hardball legal tactics. Was: The Histor that:
                        >I dont think its a new law though is it, just another wave of 'make an
                        >example of them to get others to comply, throw the book at them' type
                        >stuff?

                        you're right, old law. as discussed here recently, in Australia this
                        been the norm for years. Small annual licence fee, the money is
                        redistributed as royalties to the artists (they do audits of what is
                        played and bought).

                        >
                        >Added together these sorts of extra costs can make it hard for the
                        >smaller venues to survive, if they arent too profitable to start with.
                        >But its something Im sure most businesses are used to paying, I think
                        >in the UK that most companies accept they have to pay such things, or
                        >they try to avoid it until they are first approached, and then they
                        >cough up the moolah rather than having to suffer any further hassle.


                        here the cost for clubs has just gone up substantially which they're
                        all upset about, on the other hand if I sell a recording to an
                        individual for an individual cost and it gets played to a *paying*
                        audience in a club of 1000, it seems pretty reasonable that the
                        artist gets a return...

                        >
                        >I dont expect anybody that makes a stand in the courts to win, as I
                        >think the laws are pretty well established regarding public
                        >performance rights, but maybe Im wrong.
                        >
                        >Like when I was a kid, when they played videos at school the
                        >smallprint always mentioned that the video was not licensed for
                        >display at public events, in schools etc. I always wondered if the
                        >schools paid a blanket fee, or some higher authority covered it on
                        >their behalf, or whether they were being naughty and ignoring such things.

                        it is normal practice to buy a different licence for edu use. eg a
                        film that i can buy for $30 over the counter for home use might be
                        $300 but I can then show it to a lecture theatre full of students.
                        same logic as for the music. also why technically you can only
                        photocopy x% of a book to make available to students.

                        we can complain about it, or we can make work that is not subject to
                        these forms of copyright if we wish. :-)
                        --
                        cheers
                        Adrian Miles
                        this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x]
                        vogmae.net.au
                        [official compliance stuff:] CRICOS provider code: 00122A
                      • Steve Watkins
                        In a different thread Adam Quirk said: I have a special place in my heart for those who want to push anything farther than most. Creativity, freedom, even
                        Message 11 of 23 , Aug 3, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In a different thread Adam Quirk said:

                          "I have a special place in my heart for those who want to push
                          anything farther than most. Creativity, freedom, even obscenity (for
                          fuck's sake). One of the biggest misses in videoblogging is the lack
                          of people pushing limits, and I don't exclude myself."

                          Yes I ponder that a lot all the time. I wanted to do risky stuff but I
                          struggle because I am a chickenshit, get paranoid, intimidate myself lol.

                          I have commented not so long ago that a lot of edgy stuff Ive seen in
                          my life has been on UK television.

                          But Ive got a few examples of stuff I think is edgy on the net that I
                          wasnt aware of till recently:

                          Better Bad News (god knows why I only just saw this amazing stuff)

                          Pat Condell on Youtube (attacking religions with comic truth, whoa)


                          I dont know if its harder to stumble over the edge these days, maybe I
                          am looking for the wrong edge. Would Lenny Bruce and Bill Hicks have
                          been edgy if they were of the vlogging era? Is it harder to be edgy on
                          the net?

                          Are conspiracy theory talking heads edgy?

                          Oh I just dont know, so much of this is about cultural taboo's, we
                          have seen that comments about Thailands king are definately edgy if
                          you are vlogging such things in Thailand where he is revered and there
                          still seem to be widespread belief in that sort of deference and respect.

                          I suppose a reason to expect more edgy stuff on the net, is that such
                          things may not traditionalyl get on TV due to financial and legal
                          risks. So maybe youd expect a floodtide of such stuff on the net
                          because it doesnt currently suffer those barriers much.

                          Also I guess its about audience, Janet Jacksons nipple can cause a
                          storm if it slips out to the masses at a certain time of day,
                          meanwhile look at whats available on the net.

                          Cheers

                          Steve Elbows
                        • Bill Cammack
                          ... Yeah... I ve TRIED not to laugh at Better Bad News , but I haven t seen an episode of it yet where I haven t gotten at
                          Message 12 of 23 , Aug 3, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <steve@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > But Ive got a few examples of stuff I think is edgy on the net that I
                            > wasnt aware of till recently:
                            >
                            > Better Bad News (god knows why I only just saw this amazing stuff)
                            >
                            > Cheers
                            >
                            > Steve Elbows
                            >

                            Yeah... I've TRIED not to laugh at "Better Bad News"
                            <http://betterbadnews.blip.tv/>, but I haven't seen an episode of it
                            yet where I haven't gotten at least two decent laughs out of it.
                            There's obviously a lot of writing work ?improv work? that goes into
                            that show.

                            --
                            billcammack
                            http://reelsolid.tv
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.