On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 12:17, Frank Barknecht wrote: Oops. Looks like I hit a sore spot. Sorry!

Frank Barknecht wrote: the license that Mark is referring to is the Sampling License. thats the point of CC though - it isnt about free / non-free, its about choice. some people feel as strongly about public domain as others do about free software / free music. CC is just there to facilitate an easy selection of licenses which are watertight legally, so that musicians / artists / writers / filmmakers can get on with doing what they do best, and licensing it according to their views. personally, i use the Attribution-Share-Alike license, which is pretty much a translation of the GPL. but i will not be forced to judge that as being somehow 'better' than Tom Poe's work with the Public Domain - www.studioforrecording.org. both are about freedom. and unfortunately, if you really want to enable freedom, you also have to allow freedom of choice. the factionism that i see among some free software advocates disappoints me greatly as it is totally in contrast to the spirit of freedom itself. we cannot force people to be free - but some seem to be rather keen on it. i'd hate to see the evolution of Free Software Nazism - but that sort of thing dangerously approaches it. free the freedom? m~ -- |\ _,,,---,,_ ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ HTTP 503: Too Busy |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." -- Bruce Graham Musicians say No to RIAA Persecution and Prosecution of Music Lovers! Sign the petition at http://www.copyleftmedia.org.uk/justsayno/ .::. www.iriXx.org .::. www.copyleftmedia.org.uk .::.

Patrick Shirkey wrote: i wouldnt say its got so bad as to be 'sleeping with the enemy' ... more a case of extremism. but one of my heroes (and publisher ;-) is RMS because he is *so* uncompromising. if he had compromised and watered things down from the start, then by the time it filters through the layers of apathy in our society we wouldnt have anything left. as it is, the watered down forms of freedom are still useful. turning a blind eye is okay in some respects - in fact you could say i as a free software advocate am turning a blind eye to 'open source' with my attitude. but actually i'm feeling very strongly that we campaigners for freedom are missing a very important element out of our freedom - the freedom to choose. and that includes the freedom to choose proprietary software, god forbid. we HAVE to have this attitude though, otherwise we are total hypocrites by virtue of our own standards. i support Creative Commons because it offers everyone the freedom to choose - and puts all options before us, from proprietary through to Free, open source but non-commercial and finally public domain. and all permutations in between. the emphasis though is the same as that of free software campaigns - promoting the Community or 'Commons' - giving back to the community rather than taking from it. *that* is what Larry Lessig is *really* on about. i have an aversion to religious extremism or fanaticism, having been brought up in such an environment. but i also dont throw the baby out with the bathwater (and haven't with my faith either, even though i wont attend a church). fanaticism implies a lack of freedom, and free software campaigners need to be very careful NOT to fall into the trap of fanaticism. argh, its about time i started a Copyleftmedia discussion list instead of rabbiting on on l-a-u ;-) bw m~ -- |\ _,,,---,,_ ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ HTTP 503: Too Busy |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." -- Bruce Graham Musicians say No to RIAA Persecution and Prosecution of Music Lovers! Sign the petition at http://www.copyleftmedia.org.uk/justsayno/ .::. www.iriXx.org .::. www.copyleftmedia.org.uk .::.

Frank Barknecht wrote: hi. it really *is* about time i got a Copyleftmedia discussion list going (Copyleftmedia is my website devoted to copyleft licensing of the arts - and is a supporter and participant in iCommons, the internationalisation of Creative Commons). CC itself doesnt really concern itself with 'free' or 'non-free' - in fact i dont think you'll see those terms used at all on the website, certainly not in the 'Free software / Software Libre' sense. CC is concerned with 'the Commons' - the community of artists and the community of material created by artists. this is what it has in common with Free Software - the emphasis on community. on creating a Commons of material which we can draw from and share. CC also wants to be inclusive of all sorts of different efforts towards making this Commons or community happen. in that sense, while i prefer to use the GPL-style 'Attribution - Share-Alike' license for my own works, i am pleased to be able to support non-commercial and public domain licenses. i know people who feel as strongly about the public domain (go visit the DMCA_discuss list to meet them :) as we do about Free software. but i also know producers who are too scared to license their works as completely Free yet. i feel that any move towards Freedom or Commons or whatever we want to call it is a good one - and better than the proprietary option. i dont think Open Source is bad, but in my own works i choose Free. the difference with CC is that it doesnt discriminate between any of these efforts towards the Commons, but acts as an umbrella to foster all of them and bring people together. now THAT is something missing in our community - communication. since i began Copyleftmedia i noticed that there are dozens of Free / Open Music licenses of various sorts but hardly any of them know of each other's existence. putting them all together is what i want to do - to build community. i think its damaging to start saying 'you're not part of my community because you dont entirely share every bit of my philosophy'. why not focus on what we have in common - its far more powerful to work together than to split into factions - which i think is hypocritical, because its contrary to the very spirit of Freedom and Commons. yeah, i understand. i'd say go ahead and say it in German, but my reading thesedays is rather rudimentary and based on understanding Dutch which is my second language... i could give it a go, though... but i might then struggle just as much to understand... ! :( greetings m~ -- |\ _,,,---,,_ ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ HTTP 503: Too Busy |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." -- Bruce Graham Musicians say No to RIAA Persecution and Prosecution of Music Lovers! Sign the petition at http://www.copyleftmedia.org.uk/justsayno/ .::. www.iriXx.org .::. www.copyleftmedia.org.uk .::.

Hallo, Daniel James hat gesagt: // Daniel James wrote: But then it cannot be distributed commercially freely by anyone. It cannot be sold if you don't get a special permission to do so. So actually the license doesn't give the user the full rights. I don't quite see, why the right to use something commercially must be considered something else than the right to run a program, listen to a CD or give away a book. I understand that musicians want to get paid for their music. I have several friends who must live from their music's income. But rejecting a licensee the right to commercial use simply is another kind of license than what a free license should allow. I mean, programmers like Paul Davis put months and years of work into free software, too, without holding back the right to commercial use. Commercial use only has to follow "the rules" like: no copy-protection, no rights' stealing, etc. And Paul surely wants to eat, too. Why should artists get to keep more rights for themselves than the programmers? ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__

Hallo, Daniel James hat gesagt: // Daniel James wrote: I am not. You seem to misunderstand me. Yes, free software and free music is a gift. The non-commercial CC license makes it a gift with a catch, or actually it makes it not a gift at all in some sense. (One could argue, that GPL-free also has a catch, by disallowing to take the gift away) That's all what I'm saying. I'm not demanding musicians or software authors to do anything or give me anything. I also don't (want to) agitate against non-commercial licenses. But "non-commercial use or distribution only" means non-free, that's all that I'm saying. And personally I don't like the close neighbourhood of a non-free license to the free licenses within the CC license bunch, because it gives the impression, that "non-commercial use/dist. only" still means free, when in fact it doesn't, it just means "sometimes yes, sometimes not". ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__

Daniel James wrote / a écrit: stepping inside... There's nothing wrong, but if it costs something (again, nothing wrong) then it's not... free. I think that's what Frank was pointing out. GuyCLO~ ------------------------------------- #219055 http://counter.li.org ------------------------------------- http://perso.wanadoo.fr/guy.clotilde/ ------------------------------------- Change your Linux PC in a powerful RythmStation, with holborn's GMORGAN: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/guy.clotilde/GMORGAN/ ------------------------------------- The Wright brothers were not the first to fly...they were the first to LAND.

Hallo, Guy Daniel CLOTILDE hat gesagt: // Guy Daniel CLOTILDE wrote: Yes, exactamently. I don't have a problem with buying music, I do this a lot and I don't like ripoff P2P because it doesn't feel right to betray musicians. (I love netlabes, though). But I don't want to be told "here, take it, it's free! (...kind of)" when it isn't free. But -- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:38:31 +0000, iriXx wrote / a écrit: yes I'm aware of this, iriXx. And in fact my sentence was calling for yours :) Anyway I have no doubt that we agree on the GNU principles in this forum. I was following the very interesting discussion about how to transpose it into music and I'd like to share my point of view: (please everyone excuse my poor english. I hope I will be able to express my ideas in a clear way) I believe GNU can be translated near without any modifications into music. The key point is understanding what is the "source", talking about music. The idea of making availabe the separated audio tracks seems actually hard to make (lots of space and cpu time needed). But historically, the on-paper printed score is the musical "source" that was shared/sold. Now it can be a midifile or better an abc file. The abc (or midi file) file is human readable (the midifile is not directly human readable, although it's an very well established standard). The abc file contains all the information needed to reproduce the music, and the resulting music will depend on the hardware (soundcard) as much as a program that runs faster on a faster cpu or with a better compiler. Some could even say that the compiler is the musician who will play the resulting score. Yes that's my final goal. But some would just like to hear the song. More, the abc file is very small, has the place to contain the authors and the license. We can want to hear the singer audio tracks, but that is the case where we got to pay the musician for (as well as paying redhat premium services). So there is way to make money (playing live music, that can work , believe me) but not upon the source/score. Jazz actually exists because musicians can share tons of standards. And of course this is a problem because lots of songs are copyrighted. Technically lots of people are guilty giving music pleasure to people. Today I'd like to have music available for free when I play music. I want to tell the listeners that I'm playing a song of XXX, with modifications by YYYY and interpretaion by me. I want to modify a song I love. I want to re-use some groovy drums, some clever bass, some smart lyrics. Today it's not possible. We are at best in the situation of ten years before on windows with all the shareware available for free (tons of midifile on the web) but no license permetting the use. I for one would like to put my poor own songs available under a GNU-Music license, i.e. redistribution is allowed as soon as it allows other (me included) to profit back from the resulting work. I think that these ideas exist before this post and I hope that I didn't express them in a dumb way.. I'd like to discuss about it, but please, not about money. It's a dead horse, beaten everyday when someone talks about GNU. Once again, the point is given choice to people and to artists. cheers. GuyCLO~ Dreaming of GNU-Music. ----------------------------------------------- #219055 http://counter.li.org ----------------------------------------------- http://perso.wanadoo.fr/guy.clotilde/index.html ----------------------------------------------- Change your Linux PC in a Rythm Station with holborn's GMORGAN: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/guy.clotilde/GMORGAN/index.html -----------------------------------------------

Actually, if you look at: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html you'll see that originally, there was no distinction made between the two English meanings of 'free'. That came later. I think it's unrealistic to expect that if you want to distribute something commercially, then you should have a right not to pay for it. It breaks the virtuous circle that makes free software great. I think an important distinction between music and software is that software requires active developer input to retain its commercial value, and the equivalent isn't true of music. For example, plenty of 1950's music still has commercial value, but most 1950's software does not. Given the often short careers of musicians, there must be plenty of people who are still getting an income from those old hits. (Probably not the musicians who made them, but that's another story - just ask the Rolling Stones). Without a 'pension' in the form of retained commercial rights, what would those people do? Be forced to keep playing live until they look like a bunch of ridiculous old men prancing around on stage? You've got to feel sorry for them - I'm sure they'd rather be playing golf or something. Cheers Daniel

I don't think that's true. You could make a political but highly commercial record that was subject to censorship in certain countries. But I was talking specifically about commercial distribution. I envisage a scenario where non-tangible digital culture can be freely redistributed by end users - call it free speech or viral marketing - but that culture in a physical format, such as CD or DVD, is sold commercially to pay for the costs of production and artist income. That's what's happening anyway - it's just that the media giants have to get real about building a business model out of selling binary numbers. iTunes might work for Apple, but I can't see many artists making a living out of that kind of commercial distribution. (Apple users are well known for being mugs that will buy anything that Apple offers, anyway. I've listened to music on an iPod, and I thought it sounded crap.) I blame it on the dot-com boom. The major labels were sold on the idea that 'digital goods' would provide massive profit ratios, due to the near-zero cost of duplication and distribution. But what they hadn't considered is that while this is true for labels, it is also true for end users. Ah - but you're using the 'free beer' sense in 'free distribution'. Practically, you can't charge money for your work if it is able to be commercially distributed by a third party without paying you anything. That third party can always undercut you on retail price, because they aren't putting any money into development. Cheers Daniel

Because you said "If the right is bound to giving money to the creator it is not a free good". I think there's a good reason for having the two meanings of 'free' in English - it's because if you don't have any money, you can't afford liberty. I would call this a lack of access, or accessibility. But in the context of online music vs. CDs, the issue isn't that peer-to-peer users can't afford CDs - as Eminem pointed out, if you can afford a PC and internet connectivity then you can afford to buy legitimate, tangible music media. Rather, it's that existing models of distribution have been leapfrogged by the internet, and in the rush to catch up the would-be owners of our culture are attempting to dictate how computers should be used. As I see it, software like Gnomoradio is part of the counter-argument. Cheers Daniel

Frank Barknecht wrote: no it isnt!!!!! have you READ the GPL???? it specifically says that you may charge for distribution. try telling the above to RMS. i think he'd say, as i do, that thats complete bollocks. please get your facts straight. this sort of misnomer is the stuff that is putting business off supporting free as in libre software. m~ -- |\ _,,,---,,_ ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ HTTP 503: Too Busy |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." -- Bruce Graham Musicians say No to RIAA Persecution and Prosecution of Music Lovers! Sign the petition at http://www.copyleftmedia.org.uk/justsayno/ .::. www.iriXx.org .::. www.copyleftmedia.org.uk .::.

Hallo, iriXx hat gesagt: // iriXx wrote: Did I say ANYWHERE that it would not allow that? Did you see the "only" I wrote above? And the "every copy" and the "distribution must be allowed"? Have YOU read MY words? Do you pay Linus Thorwalds for every one of your kernel? Would you be able to use Linux freely, if you had to? No, you wouldn't and that is because the GPL does not put any (monetary) restrictions on the distribution of the kernel. Yes, you may charge, but no, you're not obliged to. That's all I'm telling here for days, so please stop putting words in my mouth I didn't say. (sorry for getting impatient) ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__

I think that's a popular interpretation of the GPL, but in fact I think you only have to distribute source code to those parties that have received a binary. You can sell binaries for whatever you like - Red Hat tm Enterprise AS Premium costs US $2499-$18000 for one year of updates, depending on processor architecture: http://www.redhat.com/apps/commerce/rhel/as/ Most of the commercial Linux distributors are using trademarks (eg Red Hat tm), non-GPL essential components (eg SUSE's installer), or lock-in to update services (Red Hat tm Enterprise) to frustrate third-party commercial redistribution. (All trademarks in this email are acknowledged to belong to their respective owners). Cheers Daniel

now THAT is cool. do you mind if i borrow this... i'm writing some stuff in my book about why the GPL actually makes you better off than proprietary. the other thing is you never get tied into exclusive licenses. if a publisher prints my book, i still have the right to go away and get someone else to print it, or print it myself. i retain my rights by using a Free license. nice fringe benefit when some authors have had their books printed, not marketed properly and when they've wanted to get the rights back to sell it to another publisher they've found theyre in a 2 year or more contract. i believe the fundamental reason why the FSF has been so successful, where other Free Software ventures failed, is that RMS is very shrewd with money, and shrewd in setting up infrastructures. he's always got a clever idea for how you could build a system like this that actually contributes back to the Free Software community. he told me he hates the idea of 'business models' - but to compete in that sort of a world, he's been very clever with investment, charging for software where necessary, and obtaining grants and awards for his work. we could learn a lot from him. m~ Michal Seta wrote: -- |\ _,,,---,,_ ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ HTTP 503: Too Busy |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." -- Bruce Graham Musicians say No to RIAA Persecution and Prosecution of Music Lovers! Sign the petition at http://www.copyleftmedia.org.uk/justsayno/ .::. www.iriXx.org .::. www.copyleftmedia.org.uk .::.

Michal Seta wrote: heheheheee thanks, i will do... the website is here www.copyleftmedia.org.uk but i've got another 6 months or so of writing left.... oh yeah and the book is copyleft licensed, totally Free as in Freedom... and you'll get full acknowledgement.... thanks again! bw m~ -- |\ _,,,---,,_ ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ HTTP 503: Too Busy |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." -- Bruce Graham Musicians say No to RIAA Persecution and Prosecution of Music Lovers! Sign the petition at http://www.copyleftmedia.org.uk/justsayno/ .::. www.iriXx.org .::. www.copyleftmedia.org.uk .::.

On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 10:27, Daniel James wrote: This is impossible. They all have very competent legal advisers and can't afford not understanding or not caring. It would cost them too much (not to mention reputation). They would not have an upper hand in negotiations. I can simply say: 'I'm not signing anything.' at any time. Of course they are selling. People like to have tangible goods. However, if you buy a CD in a store (and pay for it >=20$) and read a legal notice that says that the product is free and you can redistribute it anyway you like, how will you feel? And on top of that you go to the artist's website and you get the whole kit as a free download... What's better and cheaper than DIY solution? Here, I even have upper hand, because I can state on my website that the physical CDs I ship have a hand-made case and add some other hand -made features. I will make them $10 then, or even $20 and collectors and real audiophiles will buy them from me anyways... No large publishing company will fool around with unique copies and such. Trust me. But I get exposure. Gratuit. If I got a cut it might not be enough to pay for enough publicity for such exposure and the contract may include clauses where they don't need to provide the source of their samples and that I may not be able to use this in my own publicity (this is true, I know of a musician who played for a house-worming party of one of the richest people in North America and his contract forbids him to use that gig in any ad, publication. He didn't know who he was playing for until he got there. Needles to say, he wasn't offered a better fee, either). -- ./MiS _ __ __ (_)___ Michal Seta / \/ \ _/^ _| / V |_ \ @creazone.32k.org (___/V\___|_|___/ http://www.[creazone]|[noonereceiving].32k.org

On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 10:56:43AM -0500, Michal Seta wrote: For "CD" read "Linux Distribution boxed set" and that happens all the time. There is money to be made by selling just because the product is there in front of the customer, conveniently available right now. It the same logic that makes me buy a CD I want in the shop even though I could go home and order it cheaper through Amazon. -- Anahata anahata(a)treewind.co.uk -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

Hallo, Rob hat gesagt: // Rob wrote: Yep, that's a risk, but it's the risk of freedom. Make sure you always sing some political stuff in your tracks. ;) ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__

Frank, I've read this before. It's a very good read. I agree. However, I have no patience or sorrow for people who: 1) Don't read their contracts before they sign. 2) Don't pay a lawyer to translate it to English they understand before they sign. 3) Hope against all the odds that what they are hearing from the Industry Lacky vs. what is written and legally agreed to in the contract, will be done. 4) And then in the face of all of this they go ahead and sign, only later to complain that they don't like the terms they agreed to. (Please don't raise the fraud issue here with uneducated people signing contracts in the music industry. I agree about all the old black blues musicians in the U.S. - that stinks and I'd like to see that made right. But that's not what Mr. Albini is talking about, and I refuse to see Sheryl Crow or Don Hendly as 'uneducated' no matter how much they complain about their contracts today.) I work on contracts all the time. It's part of my job. There are a lot of times where two sides do not come to agreement, the contract doesn't get signed, and business doesn't get done. Mr. Albini's story about the trench filled with stinky stuff makes a great picture. However, I fear that the truth is most artists are more interested in fame than protecting their rights. If they wanted to protect their rights, they would either negotiate better deals, or walk away and find a different way to do it. If you sign, and it doesn't work out, no fair complaining about the terms. You signed it, and you weren't under duress. (That would be illegal.) If you walk away, no fair complaining if it doesn't work out. That was the price of freedom, and the value of freedom. I don't know where the GNU-ish version of freedom really fits into this discussion, but please remember, if NO musician's signed contracts with the labels, they'd be out of business. The problem is there are too many greedy people to even have this be the case... ;-) Cheers, Mark

Hallo, Daniel James hat gesagt: // Daniel James wrote: Maybe, but we also wouldn't disallow anyone to sell a gift. There are many reasons why someone would sell a gift, for example because some money is needed and everything else's already sold. True, and this is the catch of the "share alike" in creative commons or open sourc/free software licenses: You can sell, but you must not take away rights when selling. Just some more food for thought: CC is discussing a sampling license currently, see http://creativecommons.org/projects/cc-sampling. This is of course an interesting concept, but I keep asking myself, what other licenses the lawyers will come up with, when future, yet unknown "common" uses will pop up. Today it's sampling, that gets a special treatment, yesterday it was filesharing, tomorrow it might be "public place sound designing" or whatever. All these use cases might require special exceptions to allow them without charge for some people. Compare that to the simplicity of a real free license. You wouldn't need a "sampling license" if you would be allowed to "sample" the whole tune for whatever purpose in the first place. But I'm getting utopian now, I know. It's an old grassroot anarchist heritage coming up again... ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__

we used this for the Madonna remix project CD but were forced to dual license with regular copyright so we could get around the MCPS (our equivalent of ASCAP). thats a sting in the tail to watch out for, but the EFF / Creative Commons and i are going to do some lobbying which should hopefuly make things easier at least in the UK. m~ John Bleichert wrote: -- |\ _,,,---,,_ ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ HTTP 503: Too Busy |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." -- Bruce Graham Musicians say No to RIAA Persecution and Prosecution of Music Lovers! Sign the petition at http://www.copyleftmedia.org.uk/justsayno/ .::. www.iriXx.org .::. www.copyleftmedia.org.uk .::.

On Wednesday 29 October 2003 04:42, Frank Barknecht wrote: It's not so much "more rights" as "different rights". In the software arena you have source code you can hold back or give out, and the GPL requires that you give it out. This is because there are two ways to "use" software.... you can run it (the typical definition of "use") or you can incorporate some of its code into your own program. While this certainly happens in music, whether by sampling in the case of electronic forms or by quoting melodies and chord progressions in more traditional forms, there's not quite the same synergy to this kind of "source code sharing" as there is in programming. I haven't seen a free music license yet that requires you to make your original unprocessed multitrack recordings and/or sheet music available if you use music under the license in your own project, for example. So we look at the effects of the GPL and try to come up with something analogous for music. The GPL is basically written so that the code can spread far and wide without being co-opted and ultimately controlled by some big corporation with an agenda. In the music biz, that big corporation is analagous to the RIAA-associated record companies, or perhaps the people that use music in commercials, movie soundtracks, etc. I think the definition varies for each artist. The best I've been able to come up with for my own experiments so far is "verbatim electronic distribution via the internet permitted, all other rights reserved, contact me if you're interested". Maybe there's some existing free music license that's this way (kind of like the dual GPL/commercial license used by Qt and some other projects.) But even more than programmers, musicians have different goals with their music. I don't think you'll ever see one particular free music license become ascendant for that reason, and I don't know what a good catch-all license would entail. But I understand the intent of the "no commercial use" licenses. They wouldn't qualify as FSF-approved free software licenses, but then, they're not covering software. Rob

Daniel James wrote: remind me and keep kicking me until i link to this on Copyleftmedia. the point of Copyleftmedia is to unite people who are using all types of free / open / Creative Commons licenses. i dont believe in discrimination between them, i believe in discussion of why one person may choose one, and one person chooses another. that takes us a hell of a lot further towards change in the way we approach copyright than fighting each other. m~ -- |\ _,,,---,,_ ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ HTTP 503: Too Busy |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." -- Bruce Graham Musicians say No to RIAA Persecution and Prosecution of Music Lovers! Sign the petition at http://www.copyleftmedia.org.uk/justsayno/ .::. www.iriXx.org .::. www.copyleftmedia.org.uk .::.

On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 08:15, iriXx wrote: Not that I know of. Googling around found some info on the article, but the WSJ site is pay for play, and you have to pay a lot. Cheaper to buy the paper. ;-)