IDM Mailing Archive

At 8:47 AM -0700 9/13/99, Sam Stein wrote:

quoted 3 lines as for all of those that are opposed to the ethics of

>as for all of those that are opposed to the ethics of >mp3s and all that stuff, what are your views on the >mp3s of a peel session? are they legal?

My opinion is that if it's made from the original broadcast, no problem. If however, it's made from the digital recording (released on CD), then there's some question. Personally, I'd rather buy a CD than download an mp3. Differences in mp3 encoding algorithms, and settings, can be likened to the difference between crappy and pro-quality tape recorders. And I'm not willing to rely on joe-internet-six-pack's opinion of what "acceptable sound quality" is. ;-) b.

All is free. We don't believe in copyright here. If information is readily available than take it! Chad . . . :) twine . . . http://home.earthlink.net/~twinesound

quoted 12 lines From: Sam Stein <s4mstein@yahoo.com>

>From: Sam Stein <s4mstein@yahoo.com> >To: idm@hyperreal.org >Subject: (idm) mp3s of the peel sessions and others... >Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 08:47:50 -0700 (PDT) > >as for all of those that are opposed to the ethics of >mp3s and all that stuff, what are your views on the >mp3s of a peel session? are they legal? > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

quoted 2 lines All is free. We don't believe in copyright here. If information is

>All is free. We don't believe in copyright here. If information is >readily available than take it!

Why is it that people who presume to use "we" to speak for the entire list always post the most idiotic nonsense? C.

quoted 2 lines All is free. We don't believe in copyright here. If information is

>>All is free. We don't believe in copyright here. If information is >>readily available than take it!

CH> Why is it that people who presume to use "we" to speak for the CH> entire list always post the most idiotic nonsense? i wouldnt call it idiotic... i agree... (mind you, if i find some empee3eez i like, then i try and buy the cd/lp they came from...unless its on a major, then i'll buy the cd, burn it and take it back) which reminds me... www.spymania.com/spy008.htm has some mp3's from the mdk album... go 4 yourz (and if you want to buy it..just ask)

quoted 4 lines All is free. We don't believe in copyright here. If information is

> >All is free. We don't believe in copyright here. If information is > >readily available than take it! > Why is it that people who presume to use "we" to speak for the > entire list always post the most idiotic nonsense?

because we expect people to take it with a grain of salt? idiotic nonsense, no doubt. -- david

If you are refering to my answer. We disagree with you! :) Peace . . . friend Chad . . .

quoted 13 lines From: "Chris.Hilker" <cspot@taz.hyperreal.org>

>From: "Chris.Hilker" <cspot@taz.hyperreal.org> >To: idm@taz.hyperreal.org >Subject: Re: (idm) mp3s of the peel sessions and others... >Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 09:26:33 -0700 > > >All is free. We don't believe in copyright here. If information is > >readily available than take it! > >Why is it that people who presume to use "we" to speak for the >entire list always post the most idiotic nonsense? > >C. >

______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Our paradigm is shifting. I'm affraid that copyright laws are a bit archaic to handle new technologies. That was my "idiotic" point.

quoted 18 lines From: david turgeon <david@evolutiontech.com>

>From: david turgeon <david@evolutiontech.com> >To: "Chris.Hilker" <cspot@taz.hyperreal.org> >CC: idm@taz.hyperreal.org >Subject: Re: (idm) mp3s of the peel sessions and others... >Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 12:52:50 -0400 > > > > >All is free. We don't believe in copyright here. If information is > > >readily available than take it! > > Why is it that people who presume to use "we" to speak for the > > entire list always post the most idiotic nonsense? > >because we expect people to take it with a grain of salt? > >idiotic nonsense, no doubt. > >-- >david

______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

quoted 2 lines Our paradigm is shifting. I'm affraid that copyright laws are a bit archaic

> Our paradigm is shifting. I'm affraid that copyright laws are a bit archaic > to handle new technologies. That was my "idiotic" point.

i see your point, & it sounds nice & all, but i wouldn't trash copyright just yet if you want my opinion. it _is_ still the only way an artist can hope to get payment for their work as a _composer_ (of course, a performer & a producer needs a different kind of payment, but that's easier to calculate; you count the hours it takes to do the job). the laws may have to be updated to allow for sampling (i.e. broaden the 'fair use' definition, for example), to include 'copylefting' (copyrighted public domain, so to speak), & perhaps to allow the consideration of songs as whole concepts rather than as a collection of hooks (which works for pop music, but not for anything beyond that.) my point is the following: any artist has the right to either copyright their works (actually, copyright is a given according to the law), or leave it out in the open. removing copyright entirely for the sake of freedom might sound nice in a vacuum, but we should all too well know that in this world, an uncopyrighted song with any sales potential _will_ be abused of at the expense of the artist, & without a single apology from the culprits. if there were more than 5 major record companies in the world, perhaps... (actually, there should be over 500... now, that sounds like a sane, healthy, competitive, democratic number considering we live in a FREE ENTREPRISE world -- let me cough some...) -- david