[linux-audio-user] [ot] Is DJ-ing commercial use of music tracks?

R Parker rtp405 at yahoo.com
Sat Jan 24 14:54:10 EST 2004


Mark, the following is my pre-coffee knee jerk
reaction to your proposals. I got a little pissed off
and irresponsible but feel my positions are worthy of
consideration. I can't apologize for my feelings.
Reguardless, I don't want what I stated to be directed
at you...when the field is dry, water it. My reactions
always suck but for some reason I have no aversion to
looking the part of a fool.

> Yeah but that's "old world" crud that helps keeps
> bookkeepers and
> lawyers in business. Perhaps in the days of
> expensive paper music
> manuscript and vinyl this auditing procedure had
> some vaildity but
> these days where the penny per beat ratio is so low
> it's obnoxious
> (to me) that these archaic payment restrictions
> still exist at all.

I pay much more for bandwidth than I ever did for
sheet music and vinyl.
> > But this music had another license, which 
> > explicitly wasn't intended to promote "commons".
> Exactly, and I would like to think part of the "new
> world" game is
> to spread the exposure of this musical commons, not
> to tie it up
> and inhibit it with an artifical non-musical
> bureaucracy of paper
> work shufflers that have nothing to do with either
> the creation
> or the presentation of said music.

This would be a fine enough impetus for war if
musicians aren't its greatest victim. They are!

> These days, creating music is so ubiquitous that
> it's more of a
> priviledge for the artist to get their music
> exposed, at all, 
> rather than a priviledge for the listener to partake
> of the artists 
> work, or at least it's becoming moreso (again, in my
> view).

That doesn't feel much different than indentured
servitude. I saw the first commercial album produced
with Ardour in a juke box a couple days ago. I loved
it! I might go back and take a picture. The bar is a
neighborhood dump that's been in business since 1938.
Anyway, while producing that album the artist and I
went dumpster diving and shoplifting food together,
several times. The artist is a U.S. illegal alien whos
teeth are turning yellow and falling out. He's about
30 years old. Next time I see him, I'll tell him his
wrotten teeth are the price of priviledge.

>That "obnoxous bureaucratic system" already
> exists for those
> who want direct payment for their works of art... I
> don't see how
> these restrictions apply to music, or art in
> general, in the commons.

If we met drunk in a bar and you used the word
obnoxous in the above context, I'd give you the
beating of your life. Or, I'd force you to beat me.
> I would like to think the point of music in the
> commons is that
> there are no inhibitions or restrictions to people
> hearing it !

I see nothing but inhibitions and restrictions for
people to hear commons licensed music because artists
can't afford to finance the ideal you describe.
Discussing altnerative methods of payment isn't an
option because I'm hungry and need to eat. If you are
not or haven't experienced sustained years of poverty
and hunger as a result of being an artist, I don't
want you speaking for me.

> --markc

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!

More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list