Hey Ron, try to be a bit less reserved, don't hold back, you'll get high blood pressure :-D Jan On Sat, 2004-01-24 at 13:54, R Parker wrote: > 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 "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! > http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
