On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 10:41:30AM -0400, Rob wrote: I recently bought the Live NIN CD and was disappointed to find that it might be copy protected as well. It's not on the list of copy protected CDs and it bears no warning, but it also doesn't have the "Compact Disc Digital Audio" logo anywhere on it. On top of all that, ripping applications have been weird when pulling audio off of it. cdparanoia managed to start getting the tracks this morning, but it was going very slow with lots of errors being noted. I'll be interested in hearing if it works or not... -- Ross Vandegrift ross(a)willow.seitz.com A Pope has a Water Cannon. It is a Water Cannon. He fires Holy-Water from it. It is a Holy-Water Cannon. He Blesses it. It is a Holy Holy-Water Cannon. He Blesses the Hell out of it. It is a Wholly Holy Holy-Water Cannon. He has it pierced. It is a Holey Wholly Holy Holy-Water Cannon. He makes it official. It is a Canon Holey Wholly Holy Holy-Water Cannon. Batman and Robin arrive. He shoots them.

On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 04:43:23PM +0100, Daniel James wrote: Isn't that nearly every commercial radio station in the US? I know that a lot of radio stations don't have nighttime DJs anymore... they just record a bit of blather and program the setlist into the computer. hmm, there must be more to the story. Maybe non-protected copies are sent to radio now. -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com Look! Up in the sky! It's CONSUMER WITHOUT PANTS! (random hero from isometric.spaceninja.com)

On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 04:43:23PM +0100, Daniel James wrote: Ouch! That should hit the jerks where it hurts. Anyway, I can't see what's to stop a pirate duplicator playing the copy protected CD in a good player (with error correction or interpolation, or whatever these things rely on) and re-digitising it and running their pirate copies from that, if that's what they really want to do. In otherwords a good old fashioned analog copy. The music merchants obviously aren't bothered about ultimate quality, are they? Neither are the MP3 swappers. Like an earlier poster, I am opposed to copy protection but also opposed to theft of music that's supposed to be for sale. I see no paradox here. I assume there are many music makers (as opposed to just consumers) on this list who are on the side of the music producers while at the same time (being Linux users) appreciating the absence of restrictive practices or sales contracts. -- Anahata anahata(a)treewind.co.uk -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 06:15:23PM +0100, Daniel James wrote: I wrote a rambling reply about very cheap (and Free) tools alowing the bedroom studio to be a useful thing, lessening the grip of big labels on musicians then realised it was obvious / noone cares ;) dG Horay for cheap audio hardware Some of my favourite musicians can afford to burn CDs and give away mp3's at cost, they dont want to make any money, just noise. I dont resent anyones desire to make a living form music, but lots of people can now produce music wihtou it bankrupting them or having to sell thier souls to conglomerate record labels. - Steve

Jan, Always good to hear from another country! Yep, you are mostly right. The quality can be quite good, presuming you're using studio quality hardware. Hell, you can send it out of your D/A and then bring it right back in live through your A/D and you're still completely digital. The digital quality will be studio quality if you use studio quality hardware. Mostly true, although Macrovision makes some form of copy protection that can get embedded in the digital data stream which is supposed to survive becoming analog. There was also discussion of making D/A converters that would refuse to convert if this DRM data was in the data stream. It's digital on all my systems these days, and it's digital on most new portables, I believe... I don't think it's the band that's doing this. It's the labels that have invested money in the band, and it's the big distribution companies. I think that most people that make music don't do too much of this. I download music legally, from mp3.com, or one of these days from iTunes for $0.99/tune. Most of this p2p is a simple market driven reaction to the fact that most CD's these days have only 1-2 tunes that make the money. Most of the rest of the CD is filler. (Well, in Madonna's recent CD I think it's all filler!) ;-) No one I know wants to pay $8.00/'good song', and then get the other 10 songs for free? $0.99 for the songs a person like sounds like a good deal. I generally would still buy CDs as 'Snow' by Spocks Beard would be pointless purchasing a single song, but I might by a Michelle Branch tune that I liked and she'd make a few cents from me she'd never get any other way...

On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 03:02:00PM -0700, Mark Knecht wrote: In other words, it screws up the audio. Nice. :-( Yes, but label execs don't generally give two shits about the fans as long as sales are up. They *do* give a shit, out of necessity, about accommodating their top bands. So I think a letter-writing campaign to the bands in question is more likely to have an effect. yep... I download maybe a handful of songs a year, usually things that I don't even like enough to burn to CD; occasionally things that I'm curious about that I would buy if I could find the damn things. This is very true. There's a bunch of great pop songs that come on crap albums... "Genie in a Bottle" leaps to mind... Yep. Pop music kind of wants to be a singles market, but the CD era killed most of the economic incentive for selling singles because there's barely any difference in the manufacturing / distribution cost of CDs regardless of length - only quantity really matters. BTW, it's now possible to set up cheap per-song paid downloads on your own website without a lot of cost overhead and without a time-based subscription service. Check these guys out, they've just launched and I'm very curious to see if they succeed: http://www.bitpass.com/learn/ not enough info posted about becoming an "earner", sadly. But I found out about it this morning when I used it to pay $0.25 to read an online comic. It was pretty quick to do. -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com Look! Up in the sky! It's CARDIO-POSITRONICMEGAPOODLE ORIGINATOR! (random hero from isometric.spaceninja.com)

On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 06:43:53PM -0400, Taybin wrote: no, I just happened to wander in today - I check Scott's site every so often for new stuff. The new comic was a good read. -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com Look! Up in the sky! It's TEUTONIC SKULL X! (random hero from isometric.spaceninja.com)

They would actually have to force us all to have coclier implants in the inner ear that could shut down our hearing if perhaps a subaudible signal that would "unlock" the music is missing. So, pirate mp3s and they'll pull a switch to take away your hearing for the rest of your life. On 2 Jul 2003, Taybin wrote:

That seems a bit extreme to me. I think in the interest of fairness, people should be first encouraged, then required to wear DRM-enabled helmuts (less invasive) sorry, couldn't resist :-) On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 11:18 PM, Brian Redfern wrote:

Hi, I'm sorry that I don't have Jan's original message still handy to reply to, but reading this leaves me very confused about how the ripping process works. For example, from the Cdparanio doc: "Cdparanoia is a Compact Disc Digital Audio (CDDA) extraction tool, commonly known on the net as a 'ripper'. The application is built on top of the Paranoia library, which is doing the real work (the Paranoia source is included in the cdparanoia source distribution). Like the original cdda2wav, cdparanoia package reads audio from the CDROM directly as data, with no analog step between, and writes the data to a file or pipe in WAV, AIFC or raw 16 bit linear PCM." So clearly this is strictly digital process. What you're describing sounds more like simply playing a CD in audio mode in your CD rom drive and recording via the analog connection to the sound card. Either I'm in the twilight zone (cursing myself that I don't get the sci-fi channel for the tz marathon this weekend) or there's two different meanings to the phrase "rip a cd". What's the story here? Larry Troxler

On Thursday 03 July 2003 22:43, Ryan Underwood wrote: Wow, I guess that either I have always been mistaken about this, or the meaing of the word has changed over the years. I always thought that "ripping" meant getting a byte for byte digital copy, converting the CD audio format to a soun file format. What you're describing, I always thought of as "taping". So when some in the Linux Audio world talks about, say, ripping samples from an audio sample CD into wavs, in order to load them into csound (just picking a likely application), do they mean they made an exact digital copy, or do they mean they made an analog copy? I always thought it would mean the former, but am I wrong? This is a quite important distinction, don't you think? Larry Troxler

On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 08:57:32AM +0100, Steve Harris wrote: Pushing gently back to the earlier topic, what happens in cdparanoia when a CD has errors in it, whether because of defects or being copy protected? I know cdparanoia will re-read bad data until it gets a good copy or gives up, but does the CD drive still do (a) the error correction and/or (b) any necessary interpolation, or is that also done by cdparanoia? -- Anahata anahata(a)treewind.co.uk -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

Hi Larry, On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:37:33AM -0400, Larry Troxler wrote: In general, I've taken "ripping" to mean a digital copy, but the meaning has seemed to change with the copy protection issues lately. It would probably be a good idea for people that use the term to make the distinction between analog ripping and digital ripping when talking about the subject or when describing a particular set of audio files. -- Ryan Underwood, <nemesis at icequake.net>, icq=10317253

Larry Troxler wrote: yeah, if the quality of cable is reasonable its not bad. i only have PCs (and laptops) to play my CDs in - but i do notice a bit of noise. i've taken care to position the wire well away from the rest of my cards and drives - i previously had a wire of lesser quality which picked up all the noise from my 4 scsi hard drives inside the case. its still not perfect but okay..... m~ -- |\ _,,,---,,_ ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ HTTP 503: Too Busy |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL .::. www.iriXx.org .::. www.copyleftmedia.org.uk .::. Musicians say No to RIAA Persecution and Prosecution of Music Lovers! Sign the petition at http://www.copyleftmedia.org.uk/justsayno/

Hi Larry, On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 04:36:14AM -0400, Larry Troxler wrote: I have done it before, and it really isn't that big a deal. Obviously the quality depends on your cdrom's dac as well as the quality of the cable, noisiness of the environment, soundcard quality, etc, but at least on my system I was able to get quite acceptable results. -- Ryan Underwood, <nemesis at icequake.net>, icq=10317253

Steve Harris wrote: bollox. i'd care.... and would be very curious to read it! thats exactly what my Copyleftmedia campaign is all about.... best, m~ -- |\ _,,,---,,_ ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ HTTP 503: Too Busy |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL .::. www.iriXx.org .::. www.copyleftmedia.org.uk .::. Musicians say No to RIAA Persecution and Prosecution of Music Lovers! Sign the petition at http://www.copyleftmedia.org.uk/justsayno/

Right, and basically except for Kid Rock, the only stuff being signed is teeny bopper crap, or Celine Dion rip offs, none of that music is even worth stealing, much less buying. Even a Kid Rock is just uncreative, neandertalic and totally uncreative. As a creative artist I know I have no hope of making it here, but I used to think I could work tech jobs and use the programming experience to help my music, but now that I've been pushed out of the tech industry I don't know what I'm going to do, but I know I haven't been able to fit in as an artist, and now I don't even fit in as a bloody worker, so basically next February (when my unemployment runs out) I get to find out how I'm going to continue as an electronic composer while living out on the streets of la. On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, iriXx wrote:

Because you knew what you were looking for? I don't think there's a lack of CDs out there - its easier to make one than ever. But those CDs just won't get the marketing of the mainstream stuff. I think there's always been a two-tier music audience, one listener driven, one marketing driven. The problem is that the marketing driven stuff is so pervasive that it crowds out the rest, even though we have so many more ways to listen now. There was a live debate on this very issue last night on BBC Radio 2. Indie labels complained that when they take a new release to the radio stations (in the UK) the station management is more interested in the marketing 'plot' than hearing the music. In other words, if your song has got money behind it, it will get on the radio. I suppose the problem (as in so many other fields) is that we've allowed the accountants and lawyers to take over from the people who really care about what they do for a living. Maybe. This might explain why so much music around in the UK at the moment is derivative. If you know your music (either because like me, you own a turntable and have lots of old vinyl, or because like everyone else I know, you use Kazaa a lot) you can pinpoint the exact source of a riff, or a vocal. Not samples, but pale imitations. I guess most people can't, otherwise they'd be buying the original instead. I loved the Pixies, but there's a lot of bands at the moment who imitate them so closely that they may as well be a tribute band. But since tribute bands are very popular in pubs and clubs these days, maybe that's the reason. Cheers Daniel

I think it's fine to rehash old musical styles, as long as you're honest about the orgins. Passing it off as 'new' to people who aren't familiar with the orginals is the fault of marketing and media types rather than musicians, in my experience. I've got a theory that all kinds of music are happening all the time, but if you want to get a record deal you have to appeal to label bosses of a certain age - hence the current 80's revival. The trends are therefore dictated by whoever has the money to invest in creating them. Cheers Daniel

actually its an age-old tradition that goes back to the mediaeval period and probably further back into world and folk music... -- |\ _,,,---,,_ ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ HTTP 503: Too Busy |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL .::. www.iriXx.org .::. www.copyleftmedia.org.uk .::. Musicians say No to RIAA Persecution and Prosecution of Music Lovers! Sign the petition at http://www.copyleftmedia.org.uk/justsayno/

Daniel James wrote: Right, well, this is a salient point. Indeed the right of anyone to Play any style of music is held by anyone who loves that music. However, there are certain tunes and lyrics which are effectively GPL'd. Part of the living folk tradition requires that the song's history is known and told at each performance (not rigidly adhered to, I know) as is the case with many Gift Transactions. It is not appropriate either to rewrite the tune and call it your own, although that is what countless 'pop' artists have always done, and continue to do. Neither is it especially cool to perform someone's work and claim that it's 'traditional'. I was lucky enough to see Tim Rose play just before he died and was struck by how 'Hey Joe' actually meant something when he sang it. Most people still ask 'Tim Who?'. So sure most musicians start by learning 'Standards' and many attempts at writing one's own tunes simply end up as blatant plagiarism. It's hard to find anything new under the sun. But it can be done. There is also the issue of use and proper crediting of samples etc.. Sometimes the blatant pirates come up with the most original ideas. Uh, where were we? Despite his right to play the blues, I still have a right not to buy Eric Clapton's music. And anyway, what right has Manu Dibango got to play Reggae ?~]

I actually heard one of the Gallagher brothers claim that the opening to 'Cigarettes and Alcohol' was not a direct lift from Get it On by T Rex (released as Bang a Gong in the US for some bizzare censorship reason). He claimed it was a standard blues riff - yeh, right. With four of the five members of T Rex now dead, I guess their estates didn't have the money to mount a legal challenge. I suppose that's what intellectual property is all about - if you can afford a team of lawyers, then you've got those rights. Cheers Daniel

Really? I've never heard it played quite like that on any other record. Still, I don't think 'originality' matters to some people - as long as they're honest about the lack of it, I don't mind! I suppose the problem is that some people believe if they acknowledge all their sources, it weakens their case to be identified as the composer. I don't think it's the case in all traditions - for example, in reggae it's quite common to have a version with only minor adjustments put out under a completely different name and title. I think the assumption is that if you like music, you'll know where the original came from. Like the organ part on 'Double Barrell' by Dave and Ansell Collins, which is quite clearly lifted from 'Lay Lady Lay' by Bob Dylan. Cheers Daniel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 04 July 2003 13:50, iriXx wrote: I once had an email conversation with the bass player of the Santana band, Benny Rietveld. An excellent musician. I asked him if he knew why the second movement of the 3rd Brahms Symphony was not mentioned on the CD, which one of the songs is based on. (It was that song with Dave Matthews singing, I forgot the name of it.) He said that Carlos even played that music to the musicians in the studio. I know that there are numerous people involved in the process of making a CD before it gets shipped to the stores. But since then I have been losing some of my respect for Mr. Santana. Come on, plagiarism sucks, even in the sampling age. - - Burkhard - -- GNU/Linux in Education Wiki Project: http://sfzwiki.opensourceschools.org/ public key ID:0xFD82303B - hkp://blackhole.pca.dfn.de FP:0A65 5E83 F44F 47A5 3DFC 19C5 7779 E411 FD82 303B

On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 08:57:37PM -0700, Joseph Zitt wrote: Heh, yeah. Agreed. I listend to an MTV dance music nostalgia show last night, from a year when I remmembered it was all great. In retrospect - it sucked. There is a story that a british political comic, punch (http://www.punch.co.uk) carried a letter its 1842 edition (the 2nd) saying that punch was "not as good as it used to be", people have been saying that ever since. It became the motto. - Steve

I think there will be opportunities in the crossover between the two. Most of the music industry appears to running on Mac OS 9 - that can't last forever. That's commitment. I notice you don't say 'give up making music'. I hope you find something that suits you. Cheers Daniel

Newspaper articles I saw here in the US indicated that some manufacturers were making a large number of non-protected disks, and then a smaller number of protected disks, and then mixing them together for shipment. None of the disks were externally marked in any way to identify which ones were which. The strategy, apparently, was to let people return the protected disks them as bad disks, if they found them, and then let the retail stores return them to the manufacturer. The manufacturer would then take statistics about how many of the protected disks were returned, and would then use this info to make a decision about how many more disks they could afford to make protected. their goal was to get the number of protected disks way up over time. As always, I'm the rat in the maze. I now attempt to rip EVERY CD I buy, even though I do not usually play CDs on my computer and don't even keep the ripped track. Such a waste of time. Unlike many, I don't understand the attraction of downloaded music, really, other than it's theft. I completely disagree with both copy protecting CD as I should be able to make a personal copy, but I completely disagree with Kazaa, et all, as it's just theft. I guess I'm just disagreeable... ;-) - Mark

While I understand your point of view, I will disagree and then go silent on the topic. I've been in enough conversations with folks who have the opposite point of view from me to know that neither of us will change each other's minds. That's OK. I agree to be the loser and let you be the winner in public. I won't lose a bit of sleep over it. In your binary number example above, if the license between the artist and the label/CD manufacturer says that the numbers can only be delivered to an end customer on a CD, then the end customer buys the CD, at which point I think you and I agree that fair use would allow the end customer to rip the CD and use it for his own personal, private use in whatever format he wants. Neither you nor I are going to care if he really plays the CD or the mp3 at home. That's his private freedom. He should be able to make backup CDs, put them offsite to guard against a fire killing his collection. He should be able to play the CD creating the actual audio, and he should be able to play it on one player at a time, anywhere he wants. All of that is OK. I'm pretty sure we agree with that. The problem with this whole mp3/kazaa thing is that it enable playing multiple copies at the same time by different people in multiple locations all for the price of one CD. While you may not like it, I'm sure you can see that at the cost of building a studio, recording the band, manufacturing the CD, getting radio play, etc., there are a lot of people in the process and a lot of hardware dollars that get used up. Taking the Kazaa thing to the extreme, there will be exactly one CD sold, and then copies will be given to everyone in the world for free to use whatever way they want, but none of the dollars that were used to make the CD or the studio or to pay the band are ever recovered and as a business it all just fails. In my mind, using something I didn't pay for, or didn't pay the money to the real owner, just isn't right. Theft is one word for this if you actively seek out this property. Accepting stolen goods might be another term if someone just gives it to me. In any case, I chose to take responsibility for my actions. I hope others will to. I listen on the radio. I listen on mp3.com. I listen on Radiohead's web site. Then, if I like it, I buy it. Old fashioned, 'eh? ;-) Spoken like a true 'Open Sourcer'! If you want your code to be licensed a certain way, that's you're right. If they want their code to be licensed a different way, that's their right. Hopefully the courts will protect the both of you. Hopefully it will prosecute those who harm the both of you. I think we could offer a perspective that says GPL code should only be protected if it's delivered on paper? If it's delivered over the internet, and then used in any way the person who has it wants it, then that's fair, right? ;-) The radio station pays a royalty to the label for the right to play the music. I think this example doesn't exactly address the issue at hand, but maybe I'm missing the point. True, a user can tape the radio, and with digital satellite radio, if you can record the digital stream, then presumably the quality could be quite good. I think you cannot record that though. (DRM again) Yep. Tivo and others are basically out of business on this point... Great ideas Daniel. Thanks for the opportunity to discuss them. - Mark

Paul Perkins wrote: to add to the OT... Daniel and i have been organising a petition, signed by musicians, against the RIAA's latest persecutions - with the emphasis being on suggesting more positive means to promote music rather than persecute music lovers. http://www.copyleftmedia.org.uk/justsayno/ m~ -- |\ _,,,---,,_ ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ HTTP 503: Too Busy |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL .::. www.iriXx.org .::. www.copyleftmedia.org.uk .::. Musicians say No to RIAA Persecution and Prosecution of Music Lovers! Sign the petition at http://www.copyleftmedia.org.uk/justsayno/

thanks for supporting us! :) i really want to make the point, as Brian was making, that the major labels are actually driving people away by their offensive and by their policy of only signing and producing teenybob sugar-sweet crap. consumers cant find what they want, so they turn to p2p... i've found many a title that i've ended up buying from p2p services, which i'll never hear on radio. best, m~ Guy Clotilde wrote: -- |\ _,,,---,,_ ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ HTTP 503: Too Busy |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL .::. www.iriXx.org .::. www.copyleftmedia.org.uk .::. Musicians say No to RIAA Persecution and Prosecution of Music Lovers! Sign the petition at http://www.copyleftmedia.org.uk/justsayno/

thank you, yes i noticed your message :) best m~ Jan Depner wrote: -- |\ _,,,---,,_ ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ HTTP 503: Too Busy |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL .::. www.iriXx.org .::. www.copyleftmedia.org.uk .::. Musicians say No to RIAA Persecution and Prosecution of Music Lovers! Sign the petition at http://www.copyleftmedia.org.uk/justsayno/

Well, I was quite surprised by the thread that followed my initial mail about the copy protected CD's. I have had a lot of thoughts about it, but especially this comment by Brian Redfern triggered my imagination: I'd like to agree, but personally, I have a hard time finding good music for free. There is also a lot of, how shall i put it, lesser quality music around, and I don't really know where to look. I find it already very difficult to find something that I really like among known music or publicly advertised/broadcasted music. How do you go to a record store and pick a CD of an artist you don't know yet? By the cover? When I listen to new music (new as in new to me, not in age) it's because friends whose musical taste i value tell me about it. Something else I do is consulting www.allmusic.com, and follow the related-artists/followers/influences links, and listen to the stuff with high ratings. In theory, this method is okay, but I have found myself more than once disagreeing with the ratings and sometimes even with the related-artist linking. Now, what I would really like, is a website dedicated to free music, that offers a search engine not unlike allmusic, but much more "intelligent": keeping user profiles, matching user profiles with tastes so it can make suggestions, an advanced rating system where users can rate not only the music itself but also similarity to other artists, etc. (RFC) Everybody has a different taste (well actually, a lot of people have the same taste: none ;-), but i am sure some people have a taste similar to mine. I'd like a computer system to find that out, and decide who my "virtual" friend are that "tell" me about new music. Of course, it should also include the obvious: Free mp3 downloads, links to the artists, a way to donate money to the artists, and maybe even a peer to peer network that only contains this free music. Where is this website ? :-) Maarten

On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:15:16AM +0200, Maarten de Boer wrote: www.ampfea.org We are going too look into providing all the things you mentioned (easy p2p, and what not ...). If you have new music yourself, submit it to: http://www.ampfea.org/newmusic/ The archives can be found here: http://www.ampfea.org/mailman/listinfo/new-music It's all about music. Up till now, we seem to have a 146 track cd based on the submissions. (not including the most recent of today and last week) regards, v PS: the only way is the grass roots way :))

--- Vincent Touquet &lt;vincent.touquet(a)pandora.be&gt; wrote: Also check out http://www.archive.org/audio Recordings of live music in (mostly) .shn format....... ===== -- Go See Live Music! __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 03 July 2003 21:43, iriXx wrote: There is a plugin for xmms. http://www.etree.org/shnutils/xmms-shn/ - - Burkhard - -- GNU/Linux in Education Wiki Project: http://sfzwiki.opensourceschools.org/ public key ID:0xFD82303B - hkp://blackhole.pca.dfn.de FP:0A65 5E83 F44F 47A5 3DFC 19C5 7779 E411 FD82 303B

Hi folks, hope somebody can help me with getting muse running with Jack. I installed Jack 0.72.4, alsa and the muse0.6.0. When I start muse with jack running and I chose 'use Jack' in the audio configuration, I get a segmentation fault and muse quits. Also Jack quits with the message: cannot send event to client [MusE] (Broken pipe) bad status for client event handling (type = 8) jack main caught signal 13 I'm running RedHat 9. Does anyone have any clue what is going wrong? Thanks in advance, jelmer

Jelmer wrote: Try all the above (lauch jackd and muse)as root, just to check pX -- http://www.halluci.net --------------------->

--- philippe &lt;xaccrocheur(a)halluci.net&gt; wrote: That's the hint. Try removing the jack temporary files from the filesystem /tmp/jack Perhaps you've got OSS or artsd or something else using the device--just guessing. This can be done by enabling capabilities in your kernel. I believe simple instructions are available in the jackd faq on the website. The instructions are there somewhere. The capabilities will enable normal users to run jackd with -R realtime priority. jackd is designed for pro audio so it's very strict about having clients perform on time and if they don't they're kicked. You could try the jack dev list but the developers are pretty busy and might not reply. ron __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com

On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 08:20:25PM -0700, Brian Redfern wrote: If you want quality new music, look no further than: http://www.ampfea.org/mailman/listinfo/new-music :) regards, v

Daniel, Wait a minute - I used to love to listen to his work with the Isley Brothers (Yes, I am actually that old). Jan On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 05:12, Daniel James wrote:

On Fri, 2003-07-04 at 03:42, Daniel James wrote: Mostly because his material was blues. There wasn't a big market for it at that time. R&B was the big player. Blues was reintroduced to the US from England a bit later. You guys had Big Bill Broonzy and a bunch of other blues players floating around over there getting big audiences. <OT editorial opinion> On a side note sort of related to England's appreciation of a form of music that was developed in the US. I've played in a number of places outside the US - Monaco, Marseille, Pisa, Panama, ... - and I've noticed that non-US audiences, for the most part, are much more appreciative and attentive than US audiences. We (and I use that term loosely) seem to be more interested in 1) is this the latest cool thing, 2) looks, 3) getting lucky, 4) getting hammered, 5) did I mention looks? The least important factor seems to be the music. Don't know why that is but it annoys the hell out of me. </OT editorial opinion> Second that! Jan

Feel free to change my mind! I think the problem for the general public here is one of perception and reality. They perceive that they own the music they have bought, rather than merely licence it. I guess the music business, along with book publishing, could have been the model for proprietary software licencing. This could be a strength or a weakness, depending on how you look at it. The really big selling records - the only ones that the labels make decent money on - need to achieve a critical mass among listeners, either by radio or TV, or some other means. My theory is that the RIAA et al can see the value of p2p - it solves the problem of paying for large amounts of bandwidth inherent in the client/server model - but they want to preserve their 'right' to choose what people listen to. They've got the radio/TV thing pretty sewn up, then all of a sudden along comes this p2p thing and people want to buy - for example - Janis Ian CDs. That's not what the labels were pushing this year - and all the money they spent on hyping Maddona isn't going to be recouped in sales. The pattern for the major labels over the last few years has been - established artist/mega money multiple-album deal/sales OK but not brilliant/label panic. Look what happened to Mariah Carey, and could still happen to Robbie Williams. Some artists you just can't drop, because your label would collapse. I think this is the only reason Michael Jackson and Madonna - cash cows in the past - still have record deals. It sure as hell isn't on the merit of their recent work. I think this is a consequence of the fact that global media is an expensive game to be in, and depending on an artist to deliver the goods at the right time is always going to be a gamble. Past earnings are no guarantee of future performance, as the small print on stock market deals says. I run my own studio, albeit a small one, and it's a capital intensive business - for sure. Unfortunately this is true even without Kazaa. That's why they have those big baskets of cheap CDs nobody wants in every record store. The fact is that in the old business model, you still had to give away a lot of free stuff to get your music heard. The difference is that now you don't have to make loss-leading singles, radio promos, etc etc. There are people with full time jobs at major record labels just giving away free stuff - called 'pluggers'. The cost of the old system is unfordable for a lot of musicians - godspeed you black emperor! pointed out that if each distributor in 20 countries demands 500 free CDs for plugging, then the band pays for 10,000 CDs out of its own pocket before they make a penny. Within the industry, there's a culture of 'free beer' where people expect to get CDs, overseas trips, VIP tickets and so on before they'll even listen to the music. I think the way forward is for labels to radically cut their expenses by ending the free beer culture, cutting out all the middlemen and being honest with musicians about the money. I think the major labels can see this, but it's a road they don't want to go down. That seems only fair, on the surface. However, this begs several questions. Can you own a collection of compressed air, or a binary number? Who is the real owner of your culture? I'd probably side with the record industry on the question of payment, given the money it takes to record and distribute - rather than make - great music. However, the industry has an appalling record on both these points; making sure musicians get paid properly, and recognising their debt to the originators. In particular, I have a problem on this latter point with the UK's rock aristocracy, who made most of their money from ripping off black American music and selling it to white Americans in a more acceptable format. So for Mick Jagger or Eric Clapton to say I owe *them* money because they own 'their' music, I find particularly distasteful. Again, you're using phrases that originally related to things made of atoms. We wouldn't have had a musical tradition at all if music had always been treated as property. Don't forget that copyright was originally a bargain for short term exclusive distribution, not a permanent enclosure of human culture into a pay-per-listen 'experience'. Absolutely. My favoured business model - as a music lover - involves me asking to buy a CD direct from the artist. They'll keep about 9 pounds on a ten pound CD, which even after recording and mastering is paid for, is a sufficient profit margin to make a living out of. If they don't want to deal with CD distribution, and concentrate on their music, I'd respect that - but so far no-one's turned me down... If the band or artist becomes too famous to handle the volume of requests for CDs (which is only going to happen in a minority of cases), they'll have no trouble getting a distribution deal. The control of the career remains with the artist though. The problem is that the old model requires artists to surrender their copyright to the label in order to (have the chance to) make a living. So it's not what the artist wants, it's how the label wants to licence 'their' property. I'd rather the courts were used for real crimes, instead of defending an obsolete and unfair business model. Seeing as I don't claim exclusive ownership of my own culture, I'm not sure how I could justify sending someone to prison for 'stealing' it. It's not about formats - it's about fundamental principles. Sure - but did the labels get together with Napster and work out a royalties model for copyrighted material on p2p? First Napster was sued, then it was bought out. So better p2p systems came along... The labels have had 15 years to figure out the internet, and ten years to figure out the web. Frank Zappa even laid out the business model for music downloads (in his autobiography) even before the technology was available. That we've now reached the point where students are getting sued for their life savings - and in Australia, facing five years in prison - proves the industry just didn't want to change. Cheers Daniel

The Real Frank Zappa Book, published 1989. Page 337 'A Proposal for a system to replace phonograph record merchandising'. Re-reading it now, I'm amazed to notice that Zappa took this all-digital network music idea to Rothschild Venture Capital many years before the book was written, when CDs hadn't yet become generally available and a CD player cost $700. He begins with the limitations and business problems of vinyl distribution, and argues that CD won't really solve those problems. The idea was that the digital music would come down the phone line or cable TV wire, where it could be transferred onto a Sony F1 tape machine (which I assume is an early form of DAT). Alternatively, a cheaper solution would use a DA converter and analogue cassette tape. It was proposed to do all the royalty accounting in software, with subscribers paying a flat monthly fee. The album artwork would be displayed on the cable TV channel. Needless to say, the VCs turned Zappa down. But it proves that the ideas were there for the taking, probably twenty years ago. Cheers Daniel

Maarten de Boer wrote: i think it would certainly give a strong case for prior art :-) m~ -- |\ _,,,---,,_ ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ HTTP 503: Too Busy |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL .::. www.iriXx.org .::. www.copyleftmedia.org.uk .::. Musicians say No to RIAA Persecution and Prosecution of Music Lovers! Sign the petition at http://www.copyleftmedia.org.uk/justsayno/

Maybe, but music was a particularly high profit business in the late 20th century. I find the idea that this was just a passing phase intriguing - the hotel trashing rock star lifestyle turns out to be unsustainable. Led Zepplin had their own jumbo jet, I believe. Or the Kinks 'Lola vs. Powerman and the Money-go-round' LP - a farewell note to the industry. Cheers Daniel

Sure, where it's a straight cover version. Assuming the original songwriter signed an excellent record deal, or somehow retained their copyright, they could have done very well. Unfortunately I don't think that was the case with most of the blues and R n' B artists. As Bo Diddley said, the word contract has the letters C O N in it. I think Chuck Berry might start to cough a bit at this point. Mr Diddley too, if he's still alive. But more than just cover versions, these 'British invasion' bands lifted guitar licks, vocal styles and even complete sounds from those artists. The Stones' 'Not Fade Away' is a Bo Diddley song in all but the name on the label. I wouldn't call it stealing. But music is part of a cultural commons, so to put a fence around it and call it exclusive 'property' is out of order. That's my point exactly. For sure. I think I already mentioned Zeppelin's jumbo jet. I've seen inside one of Jimmy Page's fine houses in London (they did a TV documentary on the Arts and Crafts architecture) and it's quite something. I think the Bonzo Dog Band put it best in the song "Can Blue Men sing the Whites?", a Clapton musical parody about a well-heeled musician who changes out of his mohair suit to put on some dirty jeans and sing songs about the Depression, "when people were really... depressed. Alright! Whoooo!" Cheers Daniel

I suppose that's why Chuck always insisted on being paid in full, in cash, before he would go on stage. There's a famous story about a promoter in the UK having to push banknotes one at a time under the dressing room door. I don't think the lift was quite so complete, or close in time. To take the example of Bo Diddley, he would have been able to hear plenty of derivative music coming out of his radio while he was still working. On one level that's flattering, on another it must be upsetting - especially if the sound-alike bands are getting all the attention and making all the money. Absolutely. There's a difference between influence and plagiarism though. I'm not arguing that artists shouldn't be able to earn a living. The general problem of 'intellectual property' seems to apply across many arts. Disney, for example, had very few orginal ideas, but is now keen to keep all the folk stories it borrowed in an ever-extending copyright envelope. Just parody or otherwise adapt Mickey Mouse, and see how far a defence of creativity gets you in front of the judge. Those 60's British musicians weren't exactly starting with the raw stone - more like taking a mould of the sculpture. I think the imitation for the most part was sincere, and done out of respect, but this discussion was originally about proper attribution. Glad to hear it. I think the Bonzo's lyric was actually a joke :-) I think Clapton's career as a bluesman was well established by the time those things happened. Cheers Daniel

Of course. He did have some original contributions to make, but he just didn't get the financial rewards for them. So when I hear the industry moaning that p2p is ripping off musicians, I sense hypocrisy. I think you'll find that there was little original about Steamboat Willie. Actually Disney have a long history of suing parodies - Air Pirates being the most famous I think: http://reason.com/links/links011703.shtml I think Clapton et al have every right to play the blues, just not to claim ownership of them. To illustrate the point, the RIAA could now sue an original Delta bluesman with a freely downloaded Clapton track on his hard drive. Doesn't that possibility, albeit theoretical, strike you as a bit odd? Clapton also covered I Shot The Sherriff of course. Ironically, UB40, who are from the UK, partly white, and therefore not authentic enough for most white reggae fans, were massive in Jamaica. Cheers Daniel

Apparently, commercial pirates (those with their own pressing plants) have targetted the workflow systems that studios use to distribute material internally. You can buy an encrypted workflow system designed just to address this problem. However, I can't help guessing that most of this material is either a) released onto p2p deliberately to help build pre-launch hype or b) sold by someone within the industry to pirates. I think a) is much more likely than b) because anyone involved with b) will never work in the industry again. I saw a copy of The Two Towers before it came out - lent by a friend - that appeared to be a preview copy for the Oscars. Perhaps there's a member of the Academy who owes their dealer a lot of money... As a Region 1 customer it probably doesn't make sense, but here in Region 2 we are supposed to wait a year to see the movie you are talking about today, then pay more for it. Needless to say, region-free hacks are taken for granted here. I'm not sure where you can draw the line on parody, but my point was that there are some organisations who are very keen to take material from the cultural commons, but are not at all keen to see the material return to that commons. It's a bit like taking free software, changing it a bit and releasing it as proprietary. Again I think it's hard to draw the line, but I don't think 'unique' is a word you could use to describe the songs in the pop charts. Derivative might be a better term, and there's nothing wrong with that - as long as you acknowledge the fact and credit your sources. I think that's a good point - it sounds like a ridiculous idea, and yet that's what the intellectual property industry is all about. If Warhol was around today and came up with those paintings, he would either be sued, or worse still adopted as a corporate artist in residence! Cheers Daniel

Hallo, Daniel James hat gesagt: // Daniel James wrote: I think, it's a mixture of b) and a). A lot of people not exactly *in* the industry get access to releases before the actual release date. For example journalists, who write reviews of a record (a game, a book, ...), or the actual CD manufacturers. Cracker or release groups just need a bit of social engineering to have access to the CDs then. And with the increasing count of broken CDs (using an alleged "copy protection") there sure are people who think it a reponsibility to make "fixed" versions available. ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__

Yeah, and when you listen to the origianls , like Willie Dixon, although both use 12 bars, the black blues is different. However the Stones had black blues musicians opening for them, and Clapton is accepted as a real blues guy by people like BB King. I actually had a guitar workshop with one of BB's old protege's who gave him some of his first radio airplay, and I'm just some Sicilian WOP, but he told me I HAD to play the blues, that I "got it" better than anybody else in the workshop, and after the class I got all these invitations to come back to a couple of my black female musician friends rooms to "kick it". My own music is heavily influenced by the african diaspora, as well as by southeast asian music, but lately, after finding out the Sicily was a part of ancient Greece, I've been delving into ancient Greek music to get into my own personal roots, but I could never stop listening to jazz or blues or hiphop, even though its not within my own native culture perhaps, but music is about love, not culture. On 3 Jul 2003, Jan Depner wrote:

Neither for that action. The crime was against you, and you insurance company if you have theft insurance. You bought the right to use that CD. The thief has denied you of your right to do so. You get to prosecute the thief if you choose to. At this point the thief has not wronged the record label as they have been paid for the CD copy. These discussions always seems to come down to sort of strange examples. If the thief did this, would you call Capitol Records? Of course you wouldn't. Capitol Records has no jurisdiction in your house. Should the thief take the CD, rip a few mp3's and start providing them on the internet, Capitol Records could call the police and ask for their day in court. It would be an interesting question that if you did NOT call the police when this theft happened, and then the thief did this rip and release process, would you be liable along with the thief as you did not take all appropriate actions to protect yourself and your property? I think possibly yes.... (Ugly!) ;-) - Mark