179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes

← archive index

Re: [idm] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached)

10 messages · 7 participants · spans 1 day · search this subject
2002-06-24 06:00under the radar [idm] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached)
└─ 2002-06-24 13:25EggyToast Re: [idm] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached)
2002-06-24 13:55John von Seggern [idm] Re: [microsound] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached)
└─ 2002-06-24 14:51EggyToast Re: [idm] Re: [microsound] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached)
2002-06-24 16:14under the radar Re: [idm] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached)
├─ 2002-06-24 20:16Gabriel J. Weinstock Re: [idm] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached)
└─ 2002-06-24 21:19john tuffen Re: [idm] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached)
2002-06-24 21:32donna summer Re: [idm] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached)
2002-06-25 00:19John von Seggern Re: [idm] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached)
2002-06-25 11:01Re: [idm] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached)
expand allcollapse allclick any summary to toggle that message
2002-06-24 06:00under the radarFuck the RIAA, do it yourself and post it up. It's really very simple. 75% of the music I'
From:
under the radar
To:
, , ,
Date:
Sun, 23 Jun 2002 23:00:31 -0700
Subject:
[idm] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached)
permalink · <F112jtrSByh133tYwli0001032c@hotmail.com>
Fuck the RIAA, do it yourself and post it up. It's really very simple. 75% of the music I'm into doesn't fall within the boundaries of RIAA territory, and of those acts that do, I would be willing to take the risk to play them anyway. If this goes down without anyone doing this, then this "scene" is worthless and has far less backbone and integrity that anyone outside of this little world could have ever imagined. Stephen/Zygote http://www.undertheradar.net
quoted 96 lines From: Mitch Stargrove <Mitch@DancingDNA.com>>From: Mitch Stargrove <Mitch@DancingDNA.com> >To: idm@hyperreal.org >Subject: [idm] fwd: Decision on Web radio reached >Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 22:02:04 -0700 > >Decision on Web radio reached > >June 21, 2002 Posted: 9:22 AM EDT (1322 GMT) >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >WASHINGTON (AP) -- Internet music broadcasters and the recording >industry, opponents in the debate over online music royalties, are >both unhappy with a government decision setting rates for webcasters. > >The U.S. Copyright Office decided Thursday to charge webcasters 70 >cents per song heard by 1,000 listeners, or half of what a government >panel had proposed in February. > >John Potter, executive director of the Digital Media Association, >said the rate was still too high, but was an improvement over the >earlier proposal. > >"There's still going to be a lot of pain in the industry," said >Potter, who represents webcasters who send music programs over the >Internet to computer users. > >The recording industry had sought even higher royalties to compensate >artists and music labels for using their songs. > >The 70-cent rate "simply does not reflect the fair market value of >the music," said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry >Association of America. > >In May, Librarian of Congress James H. Billington, who oversees the >Copyright Office, rejected an arbitration panel's proposal setting >the rate for Internet-only broadcasts at $1.40 per song heard by >1,000 listeners. That was double the rate set for broadcasts sent out >simultaneously on radio and the Internet. > >Billington thought the difference in the rates was "arbitrary and not >supported by the record of evidence," said spokeswoman Jill Brett. >The lower rate now applies to radio station simulcasts on the Web and >Internet-only broadcasts. > >Opponents of Thursday's ruling can appeal to the U.S. Court of >Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 30 days. The >court could modify the decision or set it aside if it finds the >ruling was highly unreasonable. > >If the decision is not changed, the first monthly royalty payments >will be due in November. The fees are retroactive to 1998 and full >payment of royalties from past years will be due in October. > >Internet radio -- either simulcasts of traditional over-the-air radio >or Internet-only stations streamed through the Internet to computers >-- is becoming more popular as people get high-speed connections at >home. > >Webcasters said the rates initially proposed were too high and would >cost larger Internet radio broadcasters hundreds of thousands of >dollars annually, more than they get from advertising or listener >contributions. > >John Jeffrey, vice president of Live365 Inc., the largest Internet >radio network, said even the lower rate may kill the fledgling >industry. He said it will cost his cash-strapped company about >$100,000 a month. > >"This is a rate that still means the majority of independent >webcasters will cease to operate," Jeffrey said. > >Webcasters like Live365, a network of about 30,000 radio stations >created by individual Internet users, wanted a rate based on a >percentage of revenue to pay performers and record labels. >Webcasters, like over-the-air radio stations, already use such an >arrangement to pay songwriters and composers. > >But the Copyright Office said that because many webcasters have such >small revenues, there would be little compensation for those who own >the copyrights to songs. > >Traditional radio broadcasters have been exempt from paying the >royalties for each song played -- the standard that is now being >applied to webcasters. Broadcasters successfully argued before >lawmakers that they already were promoting the music. > >After the recording industry failed to impose new royalties on >traditional broadcasters, the industry turned to webcasters and got >what it wanted with a 1998 law. > >Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org >For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2002-06-24 13:25EggyToastAt 11:00 PM 6/23/2002 -0700, you wrote: >Fuck the RIAA, do it yourself and post it up. It'
From:
EggyToast
To:
Date:
Mon, 24 Jun 2002 08:25:09 -0500
Subject:
Re: [idm] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached)
Reply to:
[idm] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached)
permalink · <5.1.0.14.2.20020624082246.00b63e08@mail.eggytoast.com>
At 11:00 PM 6/23/2002 -0700, you wrote:
quoted 8 lines Fuck the RIAA, do it yourself and post it up. It's really very simple. 75%>Fuck the RIAA, do it yourself and post it up. It's really very simple. 75% >of the music I'm into doesn't fall within the boundaries of RIAA >territory, and of those acts that do, I would be willing to take the risk >to play them anyway. > >If this goes down without anyone doing this, then this "scene" is >worthless and has far less backbone and integrity that anyone outside of >this little world could have ever imagined.
Well, the ironic thing is that they rejected the idea of charging a percentage of revenue, since the companies/individuals had so little income from running a station. So the people will just keep playing, and the government will attempt to come after them, and then what? charged a fine of the fees that the person won't be able to pay? and then take them to court, where plenty of lawyers will be happy to represent them and claim that the people trying to get royalties are greedy and have already made their money's worth? hehe derek ------- eggytoast.com ------- with lather thingy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2002-06-24 13:55John von SeggernHear hear...does anyone else think the RIAA might have gone too far this time? The Napster
From:
John von Seggern
To:
microsound , ,
Date:
Mon, 24 Jun 2002 21:55:14 +0800
Subject:
[idm] Re: [microsound] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached)
permalink · <002f01c21b86$c4878aa0$1899fea9@COMPAQDJ>
Hear hear...does anyone else think the RIAA might have gone too far this time? The Napster case was just as big as this but a lot of people still have the sneaking suspicion in the back of their minds that file-sharing is wrong, I think. Shutting down US Internet radio, though, and for no good reason, just seems plain evil, an undisguised power play to extend the monopoly power of the major labels further into cyberspace. Are we to be left with nothing to listen to online but ClearChannel.com or other such crap? It will be interesting to see what happens next. If anyone wants to know more, check out http://www.saveinternetradio.org/ Seems like it's already too late to stop this through Congress (unless a new bill is passed which supercedes current law), looks like it's time for guerilla action. And how about a moment of silence for http://www.somafm.com, I'm really going through Drone Zone withdrawal this week... Will other countries really follow the misguided lead of the US on this? If not, it seems like all it will accomplish is to prevent Americans from webcasting, while still allowing us to listen to stations in other countries. John Digital Cutup Lounge http://www.digitalcutuplounge.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "under the radar" <analog_life@hotmail.com> To: <Mitch@DancingDNA.com>; <idm@hyperreal.org>; <microsound@hyperreal.org>; <ambient@hyperreal.org> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 2:00 PM Subject: [microsound] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached)
quoted 2 lines Fuck the RIAA, do it yourself and post it up. It's really very simple. 75%> Fuck the RIAA, do it yourself and post it up. It's really very simple. 75% > of the music I'm into doesn't fall within the boundaries of RIAA
territory,
quoted 1 line and of those acts that do, I would be willing to take the risk to play> and of those acts that do, I would be willing to take the risk to play
them
quoted 3 lines anyway.> anyway. > > If this goes down without anyone doing this, then this "scene" is
worthless
quoted 108 lines and has far less backbone and integrity that anyone outside of this little> and has far less backbone and integrity that anyone outside of this little > world could have ever imagined. > > Stephen/Zygote > http://www.undertheradar.net > > >From: Mitch Stargrove <Mitch@DancingDNA.com> > >To: idm@hyperreal.org > >Subject: [idm] fwd: Decision on Web radio reached > >Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 22:02:04 -0700 > > > >Decision on Web radio reached > > > >June 21, 2002 Posted: 9:22 AM EDT (1322 GMT) > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >WASHINGTON (AP) -- Internet music broadcasters and the recording > >industry, opponents in the debate over online music royalties, are > >both unhappy with a government decision setting rates for webcasters. > > > >The U.S. Copyright Office decided Thursday to charge webcasters 70 > >cents per song heard by 1,000 listeners, or half of what a government > >panel had proposed in February. > > > >John Potter, executive director of the Digital Media Association, > >said the rate was still too high, but was an improvement over the > >earlier proposal. > > > >"There's still going to be a lot of pain in the industry," said > >Potter, who represents webcasters who send music programs over the > >Internet to computer users. > > > >The recording industry had sought even higher royalties to compensate > >artists and music labels for using their songs. > > > >The 70-cent rate "simply does not reflect the fair market value of > >the music," said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry > >Association of America. > > > >In May, Librarian of Congress James H. Billington, who oversees the > >Copyright Office, rejected an arbitration panel's proposal setting > >the rate for Internet-only broadcasts at $1.40 per song heard by > >1,000 listeners. That was double the rate set for broadcasts sent out > >simultaneously on radio and the Internet. > > > >Billington thought the difference in the rates was "arbitrary and not > >supported by the record of evidence," said spokeswoman Jill Brett. > >The lower rate now applies to radio station simulcasts on the Web and > >Internet-only broadcasts. > > > >Opponents of Thursday's ruling can appeal to the U.S. Court of > >Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 30 days. The > >court could modify the decision or set it aside if it finds the > >ruling was highly unreasonable. > > > >If the decision is not changed, the first monthly royalty payments > >will be due in November. The fees are retroactive to 1998 and full > >payment of royalties from past years will be due in October. > > > >Internet radio -- either simulcasts of traditional over-the-air radio > >or Internet-only stations streamed through the Internet to computers > >-- is becoming more popular as people get high-speed connections at > >home. > > > >Webcasters said the rates initially proposed were too high and would > >cost larger Internet radio broadcasters hundreds of thousands of > >dollars annually, more than they get from advertising or listener > >contributions. > > > >John Jeffrey, vice president of Live365 Inc., the largest Internet > >radio network, said even the lower rate may kill the fledgling > >industry. He said it will cost his cash-strapped company about > >$100,000 a month. > > > >"This is a rate that still means the majority of independent > >webcasters will cease to operate," Jeffrey said. > > > >Webcasters like Live365, a network of about 30,000 radio stations > >created by individual Internet users, wanted a rate based on a > >percentage of revenue to pay performers and record labels. > >Webcasters, like over-the-air radio stations, already use such an > >arrangement to pay songwriters and composers. > > > >But the Copyright Office said that because many webcasters have such > >small revenues, there would be little compensation for those who own > >the copyrights to songs. > > > >Traditional radio broadcasters have been exempt from paying the > >royalties for each song played -- the standard that is now being > >applied to webcasters. Broadcasters successfully argued before > >lawmakers that they already were promoting the music. > > > >After the recording industry failed to impose new royalties on > >traditional broadcasters, the industry turned to webcasters and got > >what it wanted with a 1998 law. > > > >Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > >For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
quoted 7 lines ---------------------------------------------------------------------> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@hyperreal.org > website: http://www.microsound.org >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2002-06-24 14:51EggyToastAt 09:55 PM 6/24/2002 +0800, you wrote: >Hear hear...does anyone else think the RIAA might
From:
EggyToast
To:
Date:
Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:51:04 -0500
Subject:
Re: [idm] Re: [microsound] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached)
Reply to:
[idm] Re: [microsound] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached)
permalink · <5.1.0.14.2.20020624094516.00b63f38@mail.eggytoast.com>
At 09:55 PM 6/24/2002 +0800, you wrote:
quoted 4 lines Hear hear...does anyone else think the RIAA might have gone too far this>Hear hear...does anyone else think the RIAA might have gone too far this >time? The Napster case was just as big as this but a lot of people still >have the sneaking suspicion in the back of their minds that file-sharing is >wrong, I think.
A lot of people think it's wrong because they hear it's wrong on the news and from other sources. However, it's not much different than simply selective radio. Artists and the companies that represent them are putting the music out into the public domain to be bought 'n sold, and often give it away for free already to promote it. Why they've decided that uncontrolled promotion is a bad thing is beyond me, but people who are planning on buying an album either a) are already lined up at the store or b) will listen to the few hits they've downloaded (and would hear on the radio multiple times anyway) and decide whether to purchase the album. People who are waffly on an album purchase usually wait to hear what other songs will come out on the radio, which isn't much different than being pro-active and searching out the album in other ways, whether it be downloading the mp3's or simply borrowing a friend's cd.
quoted 3 lines Shutting down US Internet radio, though, and for no good reason, just seems>Shutting down US Internet radio, though, and for no good reason, just seems >plain evil, an undisguised power play to extend the monopoly power of the >major labels further into cyberspace.
Well, the thing that bothers me most is that this is specific only to internet radio. Standard radio broadcasts are exempt from these royalties, arguably because they use other means in order to play songs. The ironic thing is that if artists and their companies would support internet radio enough so it would overshadow filesharing, they'd kill two birds with one stone -- control over what's being played on at least a large portion of internet radios, and a reduction in file sharing (because people are already hearing the songs they want to listen to). It all has to do with producing stuff people want to hear. Ultimately, if you don't want them to hear it, don't make it in the first place :P derek ------- eggytoast.com ------- with lather thingy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2002-06-24 16:14under the radarWhen I say "pirating", I don't mean using artists music to make a profit, I mean simply pl
From:
under the radar
To:
Date:
Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:14:18 -0700
Subject:
Re: [idm] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached)
permalink · <F181qBOJXtqy528dWlm000111d4@hotmail.com>
When I say "pirating", I don't mean using artists music to make a profit, I mean simply playing music over the web using streaming technology. Of course, if an artist is against it then it would be wrong to play their stuff, however I've found that most artists WANT their music to be heard by people via what ever channels it may be.
quoted 146 lines From: Gabriel J. Weinstock <gabriel.weinstock@dnamerican.com>>From: Gabriel J. Weinstock <gabriel.weinstock@dnamerican.com> >Reply-To: gabriel.weinstock@dnamerican.com >To: "under the radar" <analog_life@hotmail.com>, idm@hyperreal.org >Subject: Re: [idm] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached) >Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:15:00 -0400 > >I'm just thinking that pirating the music we listen to is self defeating at >any rate because most idm artists aren't getting rich off it, and I don't >think are even within the scope of the riaa? I could be completely off on >that last one. anyway the point is, we should be protesting the riaa and >the >artists they are force feeding the nation, not independent artists. so I >say, >pirate the hell out of britney, nsync, etc. even if you don't like them >(probably, not many here do.) visit your teen at school and offer burned >girl/boy band cds to all his/her friends. sell shakira cdrs at roadside >stands for 15 cents a piece. >or maybe start a grassroots "truth" style anti-RIAA campaign in your >neighborhood by wearing clever placards and carrying megaphones. >thank you, >gabe > >On Monday 24 June 2002 02:00 am, under the radar wrote: > > Fuck the RIAA, do it yourself and post it up. It's really very simple. >75% > > of the music I'm into doesn't fall within the boundaries of RIAA >territory, > > and of those acts that do, I would be willing to take the risk to play >them > > anyway. > > > > If this goes down without anyone doing this, then this "scene" is >worthless > > and has far less backbone and integrity that anyone outside of this >little > > world could have ever imagined. > > > > Stephen/Zygote > > http://www.undertheradar.net > > > > From: Mitch Stargrove <Mitch@DancingDNA.com> > > > > >To: idm@hyperreal.org > > >Subject: [idm] fwd: Decision on Web radio reached > > >Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 22:02:04 -0700 > > > > > >Decision on Web radio reached > > > > > >June 21, 2002 Posted: 9:22 AM EDT (1322 GMT) > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > >WASHINGTON (AP) -- Internet music broadcasters and the recording > > >industry, opponents in the debate over online music royalties, are > > >both unhappy with a government decision setting rates for webcasters. > > > > > >The U.S. Copyright Office decided Thursday to charge webcasters 70 > > >cents per song heard by 1,000 listeners, or half of what a government > > >panel had proposed in February. > > > > > >John Potter, executive director of the Digital Media Association, > > >said the rate was still too high, but was an improvement over the > > >earlier proposal. > > > > > >"There's still going to be a lot of pain in the industry," said > > >Potter, who represents webcasters who send music programs over the > > >Internet to computer users. > > > > > >The recording industry had sought even higher royalties to compensate > > >artists and music labels for using their songs. > > > > > >The 70-cent rate "simply does not reflect the fair market value of > > >the music," said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry > > >Association of America. > > > > > >In May, Librarian of Congress James H. Billington, who oversees the > > >Copyright Office, rejected an arbitration panel's proposal setting > > >the rate for Internet-only broadcasts at $1.40 per song heard by > > >1,000 listeners. That was double the rate set for broadcasts sent out > > >simultaneously on radio and the Internet. > > > > > >Billington thought the difference in the rates was "arbitrary and not > > >supported by the record of evidence," said spokeswoman Jill Brett. > > >The lower rate now applies to radio station simulcasts on the Web and > > >Internet-only broadcasts. > > > > > >Opponents of Thursday's ruling can appeal to the U.S. Court of > > >Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 30 days. The > > >court could modify the decision or set it aside if it finds the > > >ruling was highly unreasonable. > > > > > >If the decision is not changed, the first monthly royalty payments > > >will be due in November. The fees are retroactive to 1998 and full > > >payment of royalties from past years will be due in October. > > > > > >Internet radio -- either simulcasts of traditional over-the-air radio > > >or Internet-only stations streamed through the Internet to computers > > >-- is becoming more popular as people get high-speed connections at > > >home. > > > > > >Webcasters said the rates initially proposed were too high and would > > >cost larger Internet radio broadcasters hundreds of thousands of > > >dollars annually, more than they get from advertising or listener > > >contributions. > > > > > >John Jeffrey, vice president of Live365 Inc., the largest Internet > > >radio network, said even the lower rate may kill the fledgling > > >industry. He said it will cost his cash-strapped company about > > >$100,000 a month. > > > > > >"This is a rate that still means the majority of independent > > >webcasters will cease to operate," Jeffrey said. > > > > > >Webcasters like Live365, a network of about 30,000 radio stations > > >created by individual Internet users, wanted a rate based on a > > >percentage of revenue to pay performers and record labels. > > >Webcasters, like over-the-air radio stations, already use such an > > >arrangement to pay songwriters and composers. > > > > > >But the Copyright Office said that because many webcasters have such > > >small revenues, there would be little compensation for those who own > > >the copyrights to songs. > > > > > >Traditional radio broadcasters have been exempt from paying the > > >royalties for each song played -- the standard that is now being > > >applied to webcasters. Broadcasters successfully argued before > > >lawmakers that they already were promoting the music. > > > > > >After the recording industry failed to impose new royalties on > > >traditional broadcasters, the industry turned to webcasters and got > > >what it wanted with a 1998 law. > > > > > >Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > > >For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at >http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2002-06-24 20:16Gabriel J. WeinstockI would really like to see some definitive figures on how services like audiogalaxy affect
From:
Gabriel J. Weinstock
To:
under the radar ,
Date:
Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:16:44 -0400
Subject:
Re: [idm] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached)
Reply to:
Re: [idm] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached)
permalink · <20165217107176@DNAMERICAN.COM>
I would really like to see some definitive figures on how services like audiogalaxy affect record sales other than the canonical "profits actually increased during napster usage" argument that has been given for a while now. I mean, there are a lot of questions out there that the industry [RIAA] is not even allowing to be asked OR answered due to their practices. is it possible that their profits would increase if they allowed or supported p2p file sharing? or internet streaming radio free of fees? no one knows because the riaa has effectively said "rather than examining this phenomenom, we're going to cut it off completely before we even look at its ramifications." it looks like a fascist knee jerk reaction and it sickens me. gabe also that last post of mine didn't go to the list. my bad. On Monday 24 June 2002 12:14 pm, under the radar wrote:
quoted 171 lines When I say "pirating", I don't mean using artists music to make a profit, I> When I say "pirating", I don't mean using artists music to make a profit, I > mean simply playing music over the web using streaming technology. Of > course, if an artist is against it then it would be wrong to play their > stuff, however I've found that most artists WANT their music to be heard by > people via what ever channels it may be. > > From: Gabriel J. Weinstock <gabriel.weinstock@dnamerican.com> > > >Reply-To: gabriel.weinstock@dnamerican.com > >To: "under the radar" <analog_life@hotmail.com>, idm@hyperreal.org > >Subject: Re: [idm] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached) > >Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:15:00 -0400 > > > >I'm just thinking that pirating the music we listen to is self defeating > > at any rate because most idm artists aren't getting rich off it, and I > > don't think are even within the scope of the riaa? I could be completely > > off on that last one. anyway the point is, we should be protesting the > > riaa and the > >artists they are force feeding the nation, not independent artists. so I > >say, > >pirate the hell out of britney, nsync, etc. even if you don't like them > >(probably, not many here do.) visit your teen at school and offer burned > >girl/boy band cds to all his/her friends. sell shakira cdrs at roadside > >stands for 15 cents a piece. > >or maybe start a grassroots "truth" style anti-RIAA campaign in your > >neighborhood by wearing clever placards and carrying megaphones. > >thank you, > >gabe > > > >On Monday 24 June 2002 02:00 am, under the radar wrote: > > > Fuck the RIAA, do it yourself and post it up. It's really very simple. > > > >75% > > > > > of the music I'm into doesn't fall within the boundaries of RIAA > > > >territory, > > > > > and of those acts that do, I would be willing to take the risk to play > > > >them > > > > > anyway. > > > > > > If this goes down without anyone doing this, then this "scene" is > > > >worthless > > > > > and has far less backbone and integrity that anyone outside of this > > > >little > > > > > world could have ever imagined. > > > > > > Stephen/Zygote > > > http://www.undertheradar.net > > > > > > From: Mitch Stargrove <Mitch@DancingDNA.com> > > > > > > >To: idm@hyperreal.org > > > >Subject: [idm] fwd: Decision on Web radio reached > > > >Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 22:02:04 -0700 > > > > > > > >Decision on Web radio reached > > > > > > > >June 21, 2002 Posted: 9:22 AM EDT (1322 GMT) > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > >WASHINGTON (AP) -- Internet music broadcasters and the recording > > > >industry, opponents in the debate over online music royalties, are > > > >both unhappy with a government decision setting rates for webcasters. > > > > > > > >The U.S. Copyright Office decided Thursday to charge webcasters 70 > > > >cents per song heard by 1,000 listeners, or half of what a government > > > >panel had proposed in February. > > > > > > > >John Potter, executive director of the Digital Media Association, > > > >said the rate was still too high, but was an improvement over the > > > >earlier proposal. > > > > > > > >"There's still going to be a lot of pain in the industry," said > > > >Potter, who represents webcasters who send music programs over the > > > >Internet to computer users. > > > > > > > >The recording industry had sought even higher royalties to compensate > > > >artists and music labels for using their songs. > > > > > > > >The 70-cent rate "simply does not reflect the fair market value of > > > >the music," said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry > > > >Association of America. > > > > > > > >In May, Librarian of Congress James H. Billington, who oversees the > > > >Copyright Office, rejected an arbitration panel's proposal setting > > > >the rate for Internet-only broadcasts at $1.40 per song heard by > > > >1,000 listeners. That was double the rate set for broadcasts sent out > > > >simultaneously on radio and the Internet. > > > > > > > >Billington thought the difference in the rates was "arbitrary and not > > > >supported by the record of evidence," said spokeswoman Jill Brett. > > > >The lower rate now applies to radio station simulcasts on the Web and > > > >Internet-only broadcasts. > > > > > > > >Opponents of Thursday's ruling can appeal to the U.S. Court of > > > >Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 30 days. The > > > >court could modify the decision or set it aside if it finds the > > > >ruling was highly unreasonable. > > > > > > > >If the decision is not changed, the first monthly royalty payments > > > >will be due in November. The fees are retroactive to 1998 and full > > > >payment of royalties from past years will be due in October. > > > > > > > >Internet radio -- either simulcasts of traditional over-the-air radio > > > >or Internet-only stations streamed through the Internet to computers > > > >-- is becoming more popular as people get high-speed connections at > > > >home. > > > > > > > >Webcasters said the rates initially proposed were too high and would > > > >cost larger Internet radio broadcasters hundreds of thousands of > > > >dollars annually, more than they get from advertising or listener > > > >contributions. > > > > > > > >John Jeffrey, vice president of Live365 Inc., the largest Internet > > > >radio network, said even the lower rate may kill the fledgling > > > >industry. He said it will cost his cash-strapped company about > > > >$100,000 a month. > > > > > > > >"This is a rate that still means the majority of independent > > > >webcasters will cease to operate," Jeffrey said. > > > > > > > >Webcasters like Live365, a network of about 30,000 radio stations > > > >created by individual Internet users, wanted a rate based on a > > > >percentage of revenue to pay performers and record labels. > > > >Webcasters, like over-the-air radio stations, already use such an > > > >arrangement to pay songwriters and composers. > > > > > > > >But the Copyright Office said that because many webcasters have such > > > >small revenues, there would be little compensation for those who own > > > >the copyrights to songs. > > > > > > > >Traditional radio broadcasters have been exempt from paying the > > > >royalties for each song played -- the standard that is now being > > > >applied to webcasters. Broadcasters successfully argued before > > > >lawmakers that they already were promoting the music. > > > > > > > >After the recording industry failed to impose new royalties on > > > >traditional broadcasters, the industry turned to webcasters and got > > > >what it wanted with a 1998 law. > > > > > > > >Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. > > > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > > > >For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at > > > >http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > > _________________________________________________________________ > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2002-06-24 21:19john tuffenIMHO,. something big is going to happen soon to the large conglomerate media types (i.e. S
From:
john tuffen
To:
Date:
Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:19:55 +0100
Subject:
Re: [idm] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached)
Reply to:
Re: [idm] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached)
permalink · <5.1.0.14.0.20020624220505.00a224a0@mail.namke.com>
IMHO,. something big is going to happen soon to the large conglomerate media types (i.e. Sony and their ilk) as well as the RIAA etc. These are the people who, in the seventies (yes I am old enough to remember them!) were responsible for the 'home taping is killing music' campaign (Who's going to buy records when they can just tape them?!!); they were anti-VCR (No-one's going to go the cinema anymore!!); and now they're after preventing us make legitimate copies (As far as I remember, copyright law allows copying of music for your own personal use - like making a cassette recording for the car) of music that we have bought (e.g. "Copy-protected" CDs) and now charging the promoters of music (webcasters) extortionate rates. (warning: I'm from the UK, and I don't really know how some tin-pot US organisation can expect to lord it over the rest of the world) Some politician/executive with their head up their arse has decided that "digital == perfect". They have obviously never listened to a webcast (In my experience, streams are low rate, 'AM-radio' quality). If I hear music on a webcast, then it may make me buy the record - or at least listen to it in a local shop - much more than I record things from the radio (Ok, so in my youth I did this all the time - but I subsequently bought the best stuff). All this crap subtext about "by listening to/broadcasting internet radio you are committing piracy, therefore you are against commerce, therefore you are a terrorist" riding the wave of anger/disgust brought on by the 9/11 tragedy, is about as tasteful/appropriate as those Benetton ads a few years ago featuing starving children... It just bloody annoys me!!!!! As for copy-protected CDs, I don't even want to start.... Oh, and by the way, if anyone wants to use any of my music, feel free - I could do with the promotion :-) john.. http://www.namke.com/ http://www.minimism.com/ At 17:14 24/06/02, under the radar wrote:
quoted 167 lines When I say "pirating", I don't mean using artists music to make a profit,>When I say "pirating", I don't mean using artists music to make a profit, >I mean simply playing music over the web using streaming technology. Of >course, if an artist is against it then it would be wrong to play their >stuff, however I've found that most artists WANT their music to be heard >by people via what ever channels it may be. > >>From: Gabriel J. Weinstock <gabriel.weinstock@dnamerican.com> >>Reply-To: gabriel.weinstock@dnamerican.com >>To: "under the radar" <analog_life@hotmail.com>, idm@hyperreal.org >>Subject: Re: [idm] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached) >>Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:15:00 -0400 >> >>I'm just thinking that pirating the music we listen to is self defeating at >>any rate because most idm artists aren't getting rich off it, and I don't >>think are even within the scope of the riaa? I could be completely off on >>that last one. anyway the point is, we should be protesting the riaa and the >>artists they are force feeding the nation, not independent artists. so I say, >>pirate the hell out of britney, nsync, etc. even if you don't like them >>(probably, not many here do.) visit your teen at school and offer burned >>girl/boy band cds to all his/her friends. sell shakira cdrs at roadside >>stands for 15 cents a piece. >>or maybe start a grassroots "truth" style anti-RIAA campaign in your >>neighborhood by wearing clever placards and carrying megaphones. >>thank you, >>gabe >> >>On Monday 24 June 2002 02:00 am, under the radar wrote: >> > Fuck the RIAA, do it yourself and post it up. It's really very simple. 75% >> > of the music I'm into doesn't fall within the boundaries of RIAA >> territory, >> > and of those acts that do, I would be willing to take the risk to play >> them >> > anyway. >> > >> > If this goes down without anyone doing this, then this "scene" is >> worthless >> > and has far less backbone and integrity that anyone outside of this little >> > world could have ever imagined. >> > >> > Stephen/Zygote >> > http://www.undertheradar.net >> > >> > From: Mitch Stargrove <Mitch@DancingDNA.com> >> > >> > >To: idm@hyperreal.org >> > >Subject: [idm] fwd: Decision on Web radio reached >> > >Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 22:02:04 -0700 >> > > >> > >Decision on Web radio reached >> > > >> > >June 21, 2002 Posted: 9:22 AM EDT (1322 GMT) >> > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > > >> > >WASHINGTON (AP) -- Internet music broadcasters and the recording >> > >industry, opponents in the debate over online music royalties, are >> > >both unhappy with a government decision setting rates for webcasters. >> > > >> > >The U.S. Copyright Office decided Thursday to charge webcasters 70 >> > >cents per song heard by 1,000 listeners, or half of what a government >> > >panel had proposed in February. >> > > >> > >John Potter, executive director of the Digital Media Association, >> > >said the rate was still too high, but was an improvement over the >> > >earlier proposal. >> > > >> > >"There's still going to be a lot of pain in the industry," said >> > >Potter, who represents webcasters who send music programs over the >> > >Internet to computer users. >> > > >> > >The recording industry had sought even higher royalties to compensate >> > >artists and music labels for using their songs. >> > > >> > >The 70-cent rate "simply does not reflect the fair market value of >> > >the music," said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry >> > >Association of America. >> > > >> > >In May, Librarian of Congress James H. Billington, who oversees the >> > >Copyright Office, rejected an arbitration panel's proposal setting >> > >the rate for Internet-only broadcasts at $1.40 per song heard by >> > >1,000 listeners. That was double the rate set for broadcasts sent out >> > >simultaneously on radio and the Internet. >> > > >> > >Billington thought the difference in the rates was "arbitrary and not >> > >supported by the record of evidence," said spokeswoman Jill Brett. >> > >The lower rate now applies to radio station simulcasts on the Web and >> > >Internet-only broadcasts. >> > > >> > >Opponents of Thursday's ruling can appeal to the U.S. Court of >> > >Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 30 days. The >> > >court could modify the decision or set it aside if it finds the >> > >ruling was highly unreasonable. >> > > >> > >If the decision is not changed, the first monthly royalty payments >> > >will be due in November. The fees are retroactive to 1998 and full >> > >payment of royalties from past years will be due in October. >> > > >> > >Internet radio -- either simulcasts of traditional over-the-air radio >> > >or Internet-only stations streamed through the Internet to computers >> > >-- is becoming more popular as people get high-speed connections at >> > >home. >> > > >> > >Webcasters said the rates initially proposed were too high and would >> > >cost larger Internet radio broadcasters hundreds of thousands of >> > >dollars annually, more than they get from advertising or listener >> > >contributions. >> > > >> > >John Jeffrey, vice president of Live365 Inc., the largest Internet >> > >radio network, said even the lower rate may kill the fledgling >> > >industry. He said it will cost his cash-strapped company about >> > >$100,000 a month. >> > > >> > >"This is a rate that still means the majority of independent >> > >webcasters will cease to operate," Jeffrey said. >> > > >> > >Webcasters like Live365, a network of about 30,000 radio stations >> > >created by individual Internet users, wanted a rate based on a >> > >percentage of revenue to pay performers and record labels. >> > >Webcasters, like over-the-air radio stations, already use such an >> > >arrangement to pay songwriters and composers. >> > > >> > >But the Copyright Office said that because many webcasters have such >> > >small revenues, there would be little compensation for those who own >> > >the copyrights to songs. >> > > >> > >Traditional radio broadcasters have been exempt from paying the >> > >royalties for each song played -- the standard that is now being >> > >applied to webcasters. Broadcasters successfully argued before >> > >lawmakers that they already were promoting the music. >> > > >> > >After the recording industry failed to impose new royalties on >> > >traditional broadcasters, the industry turned to webcasters and got >> > >what it wanted with a 1998 law. >> > > >> > >Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. >> > > >> > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org >> > >For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >> > >> > _________________________________________________________________ >> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at >> http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org >> > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org >For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > > > > > >--- >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.372 / Virus Database: 207 - Release Date: 20/06/02
2002-06-24 21:32donna summer>IMHO,. something big is going to happen soon to the large conglomerate >media types (i.e.
From:
donna summer
To:
,
Date:
Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:32:05 -0400
Subject:
Re: [idm] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached)
permalink · <F218uijnCx4Y6oXaQKR00005baa@hotmail.com>
quoted 3 lines IMHO,. something big is going to happen soon to the large conglomerate>IMHO,. something big is going to happen soon to the large conglomerate >media types (i.e. Sony and their ilk) as well as the RIAA etc. >
I disagree. I think they will do whatever they fucking want. Just as most corporations do. Seems like the gov. doesn't give a shit. Funny thing is that most of the streams that run out there don't do 100% corporate music. One way to get around it is will written permission. Just means that press releases will now come with permission slips. Donna S _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2002-06-25 00:19John von Seggern> I would really like to see some definitive figures on how services like > audiogalaxy af
From:
John von Seggern
To:
, under the radar ,
Cc:
Christopher Zorn
Date:
Tue, 25 Jun 2002 08:19:36 +0800
Subject:
Re: [idm] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached)
permalink · <008201c21bdd$fd302b30$1899fea9@COMPAQDJ>
quoted 3 lines I would really like to see some definitive figures on how services like> I would really like to see some definitive figures on how services like > audiogalaxy affect record sales other than the canonical "profits actually > increased during napster usage" argument that has been given for a while
now. The latest and most comprehensive study of the effects of file-sharing was conducted by Jupiter Media Metrix last summer, and they just released a report of their findings last month. According to Jupiter, file-sharing tends to polarize listeners, with some buying more music and some buying less. The finding that file-sharing leads to increased music purchasing overall, though, is pretty reliable, it's been replicated a number of times by a number of different research firms. I am currently working on a new study together with some people at CalTech aiming to look at this situation in more detail, but we're not going to have results back from that for a few more months at least. I recently wrote a report summarizing recent research on this topic...excerpted highlights follow below, URL references to the original reports are at the bottom. John von Seggern Digital Cutup Lounge/University of California-Riverside http://www.digitalcutuplounge.com ----------------------------------- MUSIC FILE-SHARING AND CONSUMER SPENDING: THE CONTROVERSY CONTINUES John von Seggern johnvon@digitalcutuplounge.com Music file-sharing on the Internet via websites and networks such as the notorious Napster has become an extremely controversial topic in recent years. Since May 1999, when Napster began introducing millions of Internet users to the pleasures of trading music via a peer-to-peer network, music file-sharing has become ubiquitous online. 42% of the respondents in a June 2001 study of online behavior among American Internet users conducted by Jupiter Media Metrix indicated that they had downloaded music from the Internet. There has been a great deal of public argument over the effects of this phenomenon. The recording industry views Napster-style file-sharing unambiguously as stealing and have tried to enforce its view by filing lawsuits against Napster and other similar online services. Napster itself has been effectively put out of business by legal action since July 2001, and a number of other lawsuits against most of the other major file-sharing services are currently pending. Among listeners, however, there is little agreement on whether or not file-sharing is the equivalent of theft, with many contending that they are actually led to purchase more music in physical form such as CDs because of their music downloading. Many polls and surveys of online behavior have attempted to learn more about music fans' actual online behavior in the past few years, but with ambiguous and conflicting results. Some studies, notably those commissioned by the recording industry as represented by the RIAA (the Recording Industry Association of America) or the IFPI (the International Federation of Phonographic Industries), have found that music file-sharing contributes directly to decreased purchases of music by consumers because it allows them to easily obtain the same music free of charge from the Internet. For example, a recent statement from the market research unit of the IFPI released on 16 Apr 2002 places the blame for a reported 5% overall decline in global sales of recorded music in 2001 squarely on Internet file-sharing and other forms of high-tech music piracy: Three of the world's top five markets - the US, Japan and Germany - attribute a significant part of their sharp drop in recorded music sales in 2001 to the proliferation of free music and piracy. The effect was felt on CD sales, in most of the markets of North America, Europe, Latin America and Asia. The pressure from mass copying was aggravated in many markets by the global economic downturn, particular in the last quarter of the year. Surveys in the most affected countries, notably the US and Germany, show that mass copying and internet piracy is directly replacing sales of CDs. In the US, nearly 70% of people who downloaded music burned the songs on to a CD-R disc, while 35% of people downloading more than 20 songs per month said they now buy less music as a result. Although I do not have access to the full IFPI report on which this statement is based (Recording Industry in Numbers 2001), even a cursory glance through this article ought to give us grounds to doubt its conclusions. To take only the last point in the passage above as an example, the IFPI claims that 35% of those surveyed who reported downloading more than 20 songs a month also reported buying less music as a result. What is omitted here, however, is any mention of how the other 65% of the respondents answered this question. If 35% of these "heavy downloaders" reported buying less music, than it logically follows that the other 65% must either have maintained their music spending at the same level or increased it. In addition, we are given no information about the magnitude of the reported changes in spending in either direction; because of these omissions, it is impossible to draw any firm causal link between the behavior reported by the IFPI and the overall decline in global music sales in 2001. Indeed, independent researchers who have examined this issue have reached very different conclusions than the IFPI. In a study released on 25 Feb 2002, a private Internet research firm, Ipsos-Reid, concluded that music fans who download music from the Internet (whether legally or illegally) are actually more likely to purchase recorded music: .evidence shows that downloaders do not stop buying prerecorded compact discs when they discover downloading. In fact, 81% of downloaders report their CD purchases have stayed the same or even increased since they initially began downloading music from the Internet. Jupiter Media Metrix, another Internet research firm, has also done a number of studies about music file-sharing and reached similar conclusions. Jupiter 's most recent analysis, based on a national survey specifically focused on online music originally done in June 2001, concludes that music file-sharing actually has a polarizing effect on users, with some music downloaders reporting an increase in music spending while others reported a decrease. On balance however, Jupiter's analysts report that file-sharing leads to an increase in overall spending on music, a conclusion which directly contradicts the IFPI's claim that it is file-sharing and other forms of piracy which caused the 5% drop in global retail music sales in 2001. I quote extensively from Jupiter's results here as this study is the most in-depth survey on the topic which I have found in the literature: In the summer of 2000, Jupiter released research demonstrating that Napster, the pioneering file sharing network, seemed to have a salutary effect on music purchasing by consumers. Despite this and similar findings by other researchers, the recording industry has continued to scapegoat file sharing, even as record sales have fallen over the past year. Jupiter reexamined effects of file sharing and other potentially theft-enabling technologies on music spending, based on a survey of online music fans (i.e., users over the age of 18 who had visited a music site in the prior year) that was conducted in June of 2001-the year covered by the IFPI's report. By cross-tabulating a question concerning shopping habits with separate questions about technology ownership and usage, Jupiter ascertained that technologies such as file sharing, broadband, and CD-writable drives influenced consumers' music spending habits-in both directions. In essence, such technologies polarize the market. File sharing, for instance, had a net-positive impact on music spending-while experienced file sharers were 75 percent more likely than the average online music fan to report an increase in spending, they were only 27 percent more likely than the average online music fan to report a decrease. However, CD-writable drives and broadband were both net-zero technologies-they were equally likely to cause increases and decreases in music spending among online music fans with either/both of those technologies. All three technologies in conjunction represented a net- positive. While online music fans with all three technologies were 95 percent more likely than the average online music fan to report an increase in music spending, they were only 65 percent more likely than the average online music fan to report a decrease. Jupiter's analysis here paints a much more complex and ambiguous picture of the effects of music file-sharing than does the report released by the IFPI, acknowledging that file-sharing can have both positive and negative effects on consumer music spending. Taken as a whole, this study provides the most detailed evidence yet that music file-sharing leads to net increases rather than decreases in consumer spending on music, and Jupiter's analysts dismiss the 5% drop in global music sales in 2001 reported by the IFPI as being caused by other underlying factors such as the normal cyclicity of the music market, an overall drop in consumer spending related to the general economic slowdown in 2001, increasing competition from other entertainment product categories such as games and DVDs, the increasing reliance of the music industry on a small number of titles for the majority of sales, and the end of the initial CD growth period in which many consumers repurchased music on CD which they already owned in other formats. REFERENCES International Federation of Phonographic Industries. "Global Music Sales Down 5% In 2001." 16 Apr 2002. 1 Jun 2002 <http://www.ifpi.org>. Ipsos-Reid. "2002 Survey of Downloading Behaviors." 25 Feb 2002. 28 May 2002 <http://www.ipsos- reid.com/media/dsp_displaypr_us.cfm?id_to_view=1439>. Jupiter Media Metrix. Client website. 31 May 2002 <http://www.jup.com>. NOTE: a representative of JMM gave me free temporary access to their database while I was working on this project. This website cannot normally be accessed by the general public; Jupiter is a private firm in the business of supplying information to paying corporate customers. Jupiter Media Metrix. Corporate website. 31 May 2002 <http://www.jmm.com>. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2002-06-25 11:01Syntax8rror@aol.comDans un courrier daté du 24/06/02 6:35:57 Paris, Madrid (heure d'été), analog_life@hotmail
From:
To:
Date:
Tue, 25 Jun 2002 07:01:01 EDT
Subject:
Re: [idm] Time to Pirate (was: Decision on Web radio reached)
permalink · <135.104e0e46.2a49a76d@aol.com>
Dans un courrier daté du 24/06/02 6:35:57 Paris, Madrid (heure d'été), analog_life@hotmail.com a écrit :
quoted 2 lines most artists WANT their music to be heard by> most artists WANT their music to be heard by > people via what ever channels it may be.
if one of you is running an internet radio, feel free to play my stuff: http://no.i.d.free.fr/yann_g/ just tell me before you stream it! :) peas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org