24 Jan
2004
24 Jan
'04
6:19 p.m.
--- Jan Depner <eviltwin69(a)cableone.net> wrote:
Hey Ron, try to be a bit less reserved, don't
hold
back, you'll get high
blood pressure :-D
hehe; i am one of three of the band Three Dorks. I
speak out of turn. I want commons licensed potatos and
a chef (DJ) to prepare me cost-free meals. I am sick
of eating snow soup and having a sexless life.
ron
Jan
On Sat, 2004-01-24 at 13:54, R Parker wrote:
"commons".
partake
produced
me.
artists
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
Hi,
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 >
> 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 > 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 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
> 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 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.
Try it!
--markc
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool.