IDM Mailing Archive

i noticed from their communique that FSOL has an e-mail address - what other idm/ambient bands are on the net? i found thrash's from the orb's address (weston@trashcan.uk [if i remeber correctly) once while i was on the net, but i haven't mailed him anything... also - how many releases has Scanner put out and are any of them available domestically in the US??

On Mon, 26 Sep 1994, W. Keenan wrote:

quoted 2 lines also - how many releases has Scanner put out and are any of them

> also - how many releases has Scanner put out and are any of them > available domestically in the US??

Scanner has, to my knowledge, released two CDs, Scanner and Scanner 2, in the UK. Neither has been released domestically. However, both releases are in the public domain, so why don't you do it yourself? :-) In Seattle I purchased the first Scanner release for US$15, but I don't know if this was simply a pricing fluke. ::Matthew J. Corwine Online Editor, XLR8R Magazine:: ::mcorwine@hyperreal.com xlr8r@hyperreal.com:: ::mcorwine@u.washington.edu Ambient Temple of Imagination:: ::206.328.9368 atoi@hyperreal.com::

quoted 6 lines also - how many releases has Scanner put out and are any of them

> > also - how many releases has Scanner put out and are any of them > > available domestically in the US?? > > Scanner has, to my knowledge, released two CDs, Scanner and Scanner 2, in > the UK. Neither has been released domestically. However, both releases > are in the public domain, so why don't you do it yourself? :-)

Actually, a 3rd Scanner CD was just released. It's either called Mass Observation, or it includes that EP.

quoted 2 lines In Seattle I purchased the first Scanner release for US$15, but I don't

> In Seattle I purchased the first Scanner release for US$15, but I don't > know if this was simply a pricing fluke.

$15 isn't bad, but mailorder places have them for $12 or so. Try Subterranean, Soleilmoon, or heaven-forbid, EAR/Rational. (-; Dave (EAR/Rational)

Matt Corwine <mcorwine@u.washington.edu> writes:

quoted 3 lines Scanner has, to my knowledge, released two CDs, Scanner and Scanner 2, in

> Scanner has, to my knowledge, released two CDs, Scanner and Scanner 2, in > the UK. Neither has been released domestically. However, both releases > are in the public domain, so why don't you do it yourself? :-)

huh? scanner doesn't copyright their works? - Dan transmission 23 - FTZ - edrone - clonor the other - morpheus ii The 8-Bit Collective/8-Bit Records * US/Finland mail: eightbit@vlad.bowker.com - rkn@phoenix.oulu.fi WorldWideWeb: http://ftp.luth.se/pub/misc2/kosmic/www/8bit.html KLF/FreeMusicFoundation: http://ftp.luth.se/pub/misc2/kosmic/www/

On Mon, 26 Sep 1994, Dan Nicholson wrote:

quoted 7 lines Matt Corwine <mcorwine@u.washington.edu> writes:

> Matt Corwine <mcorwine@u.washington.edu> writes: > > > Scanner has, to my knowledge, released two CDs, Scanner and Scanner 2, in > > the UK. Neither has been released domestically. However, both releases > > are in the public domain, so why don't you do it yourself? :-) > > huh? scanner doesn't copyright their works?

Apparently not. The back of the CD states "All recordings public domain." A bold statement, I say... ::Matthew J. Corwine Online Editor, XLR8R Magazine:: ::mcorwine@hyperreal.com xlr8r@hyperreal.com:: ::mcorwine@u.washington.edu Ambient Temple of Imagination:: ::206.328.9368 atoi@hyperreal.com::

quoted 1 line huh? scanner doesn't copyright their works?

>> huh? scanner doesn't copyright their works?

quoted 2 lines Apparently not. The back of the CD states "All recordings public

>Apparently not. The back of the CD states "All recordings public >domain." A bold statement, I say...

Considering that their one idea (putting transmitted conversations over music without the knowledge or consent of the participants) is something that Negativland has done more than once ("sewer mouth!"), Scanner's following their lead in terms of copyright isn't a big surprise either. C. -- cspot@netcom.com (Chris.Hilker)........a good-foot dance in a dusted trance

quoted 1 line i noticed from their communique that FSOL has an e-mail address - what

> i noticed from their communique that FSOL has an e-mail address - what

not quite... they have an email address, which is most likely routed to /dev/null (since everyone I know who has tried emailing them has received no reply).

quoted 4 lines other idm/ambient bands are on the net? i found thrash's from the orb's

> other idm/ambient bands are on the net? i found thrash's from the orb's > address (weston@trashcan.uk [if i remeber correctly) once while i was on > the net, but i haven't mailed him anything... >

It seems to me that groups like FSOL make themselves look so childish and stupid when they go flashing around words like "EMAIL" and "INTERNET" and "ISDN" , all in the sake to make themselves look like they are part of the growing world of "net-aware" people. IMO, they ought to go sign up for Internet101 at their local college/university, and actually LEARN about what all those terms mean, before they go purporting to know anything at all about them. Now, I don't know if Thrash or Weston have an email address, but I hope they learn from the mistakes that FSOL are making when they do. -- ccastge@prism.gatech.edu | All of us get lost in the darkness, a.k.a., Guy Elden Jr. | Dreamers learn to steer by the stars... Neil Peart ---->| All of us do time in the gutter, of RUSH | Dreamers turn to look at the cars...

cdeurope (telnet cdeurope.com) had both of them in their database. Mohsen

quoted 2 lines Now, I don't know if Thrash or Weston have an email address, but I hope

> Now, I don't know if Thrash or Weston have an email address, but I hope > they learn from the mistakes that FSOL are making when they do.

Kris Weston (aka Thrash) does indeed have Internet access. He seems to use it primarily to tell people on alt.exotic-music to shove things up their butts, though. (The only lesson to be learned from this is to not assume that musicians you like actually have any working brain cells. :-) -- Lazlo (lazlo@rt66.com) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ she's got the right dynamic for a new frontier

quoted 1 line In Seattle I purchased the first Scanner release for US$15, but I don't

>>In Seattle I purchased the first Scanner release for US$15, but I don't

know if this was simply a pricing fluke.<< Strange. At the Tower Records is Paramus, NJ, they had the first two Scanner titles for $11.99. Their regular releases go for $14.99. ____________________________________________________________________________ Paul Rafanello ambience@delphi.com ____________________________________________________________________________

quoted 5 lines Scanner has, to my knowledge, released two CDs, Scanner and Scanner 2, in

>> Scanner has, to my knowledge, released two CDs, Scanner and Scanner 2, in >> the UK. Neither has been released domestically. However, both releases >> are in the public domain, so why don't you do it yourself? :-) > >huh? scanner doesn't copyright their works?

I think Scanner is sidestepping around trying to avoid any confrontations with anyone they've taped. What they're doing is highly illegal (at least in the states, I imagine its the same on the other side of the pond). Ever notice how there is practically NO information on a Scanner release?

On Wed, 28 Sep 1994, Pete Ashdown wrote:

quoted 4 lines I think Scanner is sidestepping around trying to avoid any confrontations

> I think Scanner is sidestepping around trying to avoid any confrontations > with anyone they've taped. What they're doing is highly illegal (at least > in the states, I imagine its the same on the other side of the pond). Ever > notice how there is practically NO information on a Scanner release?

I believe that what they "caught" would be public domain, unless obtained via illegal equipment. The odds that anyone involved would actually hear these releases is rare, though, in any case. I found the Scanners releases to be interesting, but not something that bears repeated listening. Give me a rhythm any day. Never mind, I'll do it myself. <G> Be well. =B)

On Wed, 28 Sep 1994, Pete Ashdown wrote:

quoted 10 lines Scanner has, to my knowledge, released two CDs, Scanner and Scanner 2, in

> >> Scanner has, to my knowledge, released two CDs, Scanner and Scanner 2, in > >> the UK. Neither has been released domestically. However, both releases > >> are in the public domain, so why don't you do it yourself? :-) > > > >huh? scanner doesn't copyright their works? > > I think Scanner is sidestepping around trying to avoid any confrontations > with anyone they've taped. What they're doing is highly illegal (at least > in the states, I imagine its the same on the other side of the pond). Ever > notice how there is practically NO information on a Scanner release?

Are you sure of this Pete? I seem to recall a court case a few years ago in which a couple of drug dealers were convicted on the basis of some cordless phone conversations that were taped by an "upright" (read NOSY) citizen and given to the police. The court ruled that cordless phone conversations were _not_ protected by the right to privacy (I seem to recall that there was a big uproar about this). Besides, the UK has no constitution, so assuming that speech issues that are supposedly protected in the US are equivalent under UK law is dicey at best. Any EFF folks on the list? Am I right or am I talking out of my booty? ----------------------------------------------------------------- dave walker, detroit art services _ marmoset@msen.com play sim freeke <A HREF="http://www.msen.com/~marmoset/">Dave Walker</A>

quoted 25 lines Scanner has, to my knowledge, released two CDs, Scanner and Scanner 2, in

>> >> Scanner has, to my knowledge, released two CDs, Scanner and Scanner 2, in >> >> the UK. Neither has been released domestically. However, both releases >> >> are in the public domain, so why don't you do it yourself? :-) >> > >> >huh? scanner doesn't copyright their works? >> >> I think Scanner is sidestepping around trying to avoid any confrontations >> with anyone they've taped. What they're doing is highly illegal (at least >> in the states, I imagine its the same on the other side of the pond). Ever >> notice how there is practically NO information on a Scanner release? > >Are you sure of this Pete? I seem to recall a court case a few years >ago in which a couple of drug dealers were convicted on the basis of >some cordless phone conversations that were taped by an "upright" (read >NOSY) citizen and given to the police. The court ruled that cordless >phone conversations were _not_ protected by the right to privacy (I seem >to recall that there was a big uproar about this). Besides, the UK has >no constitution, so assuming that speech issues that are supposedly >protected in the US are equivalent under UK law is dicey at best. > >Any EFF folks on the list? Am I right or am I talking out of my booty? > >----------------------------------------------------------------- >dave walker, detroit art services _ >marmoset@msen.com play sim freeke

I believe that cordless and cellular phones are not covered under normal phone-taping laws because they are transmitted over the airwaves. Anyone with a scanner can pick up the conversations. Personally, should Scanner get sued, I think that the lack of copyright wouldn't help them one bit. Anything that is sold for profit has an implicit copyright and constitutes exploitation of someone else's work. --Brandon bworrell@cclink.fhcrc.org Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center

On Wed, 28 Sep 1994, bworrell wrote:

quoted 3 lines Personally, should Scanner get sued, I think that the lack of copyright wouldn't

> Personally, should Scanner get sued, I think that the lack of copyright wouldn't > help them one bit. Anything that is sold for profit has an implicit copyright > and constitutes exploitation of someone else's work.

I don't think copyright would have anything to do with it. I think it would be closer to slander or libel should any of the voices be identified... I, for one, don't take the time to copyright my cordless and cellular calls. But maybe I could cover it under my publishing agreement... "By the way, Bob, this conversation is copyright 1994 Visible Music, all rights reserved." ::Matthew J. Corwine Online Editor, XLR8R Magazine:: ::mcorwine@hyperreal.com xlr8r@hyperreal.com:: ::mcorwine@u.washington.edu Ambient Temple of Imagination:: ::206.328.9368 atoi@hyperreal.com::

quoted 3 lines NOSY) citizen and given to the police. The court ruled that cordless

> >NOSY) citizen and given to the police. The court ruled that cordless > >phone conversations were _not_ protected by the right to privacy (I seem > >to recall that there was a big uproar about this). Besides, the UK has

quoted 3 lines I believe that cordless and cellular phones are not covered under normal

> I believe that cordless and cellular phones are not covered under normal > phone-taping laws because they are transmitted over the airwaves. > Anyone with a scanner can pick up the conversations.

By law in the US, monitoring cordless phones (those in the home in the 40-something MHz band) is LEGAL. Monitoring the cellular band (800+MHz band) is ILLEGAL. Just listening to it can get you busted. Many radio manufacturers try to avoid trouble by preventing reception of the 800 MHz band without mods, but then they go and publish the mods, which usually involve cutting a diode or pathway. Some manufacturers don't bother with this, and even still, there is legislature trying to prevent the reception even if the radio has to be modified... which, uh, kinda eliminates some TVs that can be fine tuned in the UHF range. ;) JT

From idm-owner@hyperreal.com Wed Sep 28 10:09:50 1994 From: JT <jmilhoan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Subject: Re: Re: FSOL/e-mail addresses/Scanner To: idm@hyperreal.com Sender: owner-idm@hyperreal.com > >NOSY) citizen and given to the police. The court ruled that cordless > >phone conversations were _not_ protected by the right to privacy (I seem > >to recall that there was a big uproar about this). Besides, the UK has By law in the US, monitoring cordless phones (those in the home in the 40-something MHz band) is LEGAL. Monitoring the cellular band (800+MHz band) is ILLEGAL. Just listening to it can get you busted. Many radio manufacturers try to avoid trouble by preventing reception of the 800 MHz band without mods, but then they go and publish the mods, which usually involve cutting a diode or pathway. Some manufacturers don't bother with this, and even still, there is legislature trying to prevent the reception even if the radio has to be modified... which, uh, kinda eliminates some TVs that can be fine tuned in the UHF range. ;) This is essentially US law, but there are a couple of refinements. A lot of old scanners belong to members of the public and I believe that they were grandfathered in, i.e. not confiscated. It is now illegal to manufacture and sell scanners. To handle the situation of the old scanners, it is legal for the owner to use them under some circumstances, but they can't legally share the information with anyone else. Basically with electronic communications, at the very least, you can't share it, but unless you are sure otherwise, don't even bother listening. An important telecommunications bill was killed in the US Senate by a combination of special interests objecting to funding provisions and Republican obstruction of other legislation (filibustering election finance reform). It had some good and interesting safeguards of privacy of electronic information such as protecting bank card PINs and transaction codes. These safeguards had been endorsed by the EFF. Alan.

quoted 3 lines This is essentially US law, but there are a couple of refinements.

> This is essentially US law, but there are a couple of refinements. > A lot of old scanners belong to members of the public and I believe > that they were grandfathered in, i.e. not confiscated.

Yes.

quoted 2 lines It is now

> It is now > illegal to manufacture and sell scanners.

This is a very broad statement. It is illegal to manufacture radios capable of receiving the 800MHz band, to some extent based on how difficult modifications are necessary in order to get around it. After all, your FM radio, TV, etc., are all scanners to some extent. There has been a lot of problems with the wording of the legistlature surrounding this 800MHz reception ban... seems that the way it was originally worded kinda included ALL devices capable of receiving the cel band up in the 800MHz range since that did kinda include cel phones themselves. ;)

quoted 6 lines To handle the situation

> To handle the situation > of the old scanners, it is legal for the owner to use them under > some circumstances, but they can't legally share the information > with anyone else. Basically with electronic communications, at the > very least, you can't share it, but unless you are sure otherwise, > don't even bother listening.

It has been illegal to eavesdrop on phone conversations (without a permit of course ;) as a third party, cel phones included. So by monitoring the 800MHz ban from day one it has been illegal, and will remain so.

quoted 1 line and transaction codes. These safeguards had been endorsed by the EFF.

> and transaction codes. These safeguards had been endorsed by the EFF.

Yeah, and Mitch Kapor was also named on the advisory committee for the Clipper Chip, a fact which he denied when made public.

quoted 19 lines This is essentially US law, but there are a couple of refinements.

>This is essentially US law, but there are a couple of refinements. >A lot of old scanners belong to members of the public and I >believe that they were grandfathered in, i.e. not confiscated. It >is now illegal to manufacture and sell scanners. To handle the >situation of the old scanners, it is legal for the owner to use >them under some circumstances, but they can't legally share the >information with anyone else. Basically with electronic >communications, at the very least, you can't share it, but unless >you are sure otherwise, don't even bother listening. > >An important telecommunications bill was killed in the US Senate by a >combination of special interests objecting to funding provisions and >Republican obstruction of other legislation (filibustering election >finance reform). It had some good and interesting safeguards of >privacy of electronic information such as protecting bank card PINs >and transaction codes. These safeguards had been endorsed by the >EFF. > >Alan.

I didn't know that it is now illegal to manufacture and sell scanners. Are you sure this is right? Even if this is the case there are lots of ways around the ban. I remember when I wanted to purchase a wiretap device that was illegal in the USA all I had to do was purchase a cheap bus ticket to Canada (I live in Seattle) and go into the store and say it was for export. (Even though you are not supposed to import this item into Canada either.) --Brandon bworrell@cclink.fhcrc.org Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center

In article <Pine.3.89.9409280117.A23062-0100000@netcom4>, Joseph Morrison <brapman@netcom.com> wrote:

quoted 3 lines I believe that what they "caught" would be public domain, unless obtained

>I believe that what they "caught" would be public domain, unless obtained >via illegal equipment. The odds that anyone involved would actually hear >these releases is rare, though, in any case.

In the UK you'd be breaching the 1949 Wireless Telegraphy Act which makes it an offence to listen to any transmission which the Government has not explicitly licenced you to receive. The fine's only something like a hundred quid though. Publishing such material could also be in breach of the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, although it would be up to the individuals whose conversations were carried to take a civil action.

quoted 2 lines I found the Scanners releases to be interesting, but not something that

>I found the Scanners releases to be interesting, but not something that >bears repeated listening.

Most of it strikes me as being the sort of thing that would be fine as a half-hour radio programme, but I'm not sure I'd really want the full-length CDs to buy. I'd also rate Scanners' skills higher at selecting and compiling than as conventional musicians - the bits where they attempt things with ordinary instruments don't work nearly so well.

quoted 4 lines I don't think copyright would have anything to do with it. I think it

> I don't think copyright would have anything to do with it. I think it > would be closer to slander or libel should any of the voices be > identified... I, for one, don't take the time to copyright my cordless > and cellular calls.

You don't have to. They're copyrighted -- and you own that copyright -- as soon as they're fixed in a tangible medium (recorded, transcribed, whatever). You don't have to be the person doing the recording, either. (Slander? Libel? Uh...no.) -- Lazlo (lazlo@rt66.com)

quoted 6 lines I don't think copyright would have anything to do with it. I think it

>> I don't think copyright would have anything to do with it. I think it >> would be closer to slander or libel should any of the voices be >> identified... I, for one, don't take the time to copyright my cordless >> and cellular calls. > >(Slander? Libel? Uh...no.)

Well, I don't know about other states, or countries for that matter, but the California libel code includes the publication of "embarrassing private facts" as grounds for action. And if planning to attend an En Vogue concert isn't embarrassing, I don't know what is. :) C. -- cspot@netcom.com (Chris.Hilker)........a good-foot dance in a dusted trance

News from the world of utter boredom, aka, Omaha, Nebraska: The good news - someone at Best Buy has a clue or is getting incredibly lucky. In the last week I've picked up FFWD, the FSOL "Lifeforms" single/ep, _Tastes and Textures Vol. 3_ by Mr. Hannant, and both versions of AI2 (Yes, I'm kollector scum). The bad news - I'm not going to be able to make the drive to Grinnell, Iowa, to see the TeenBeat Circus Tour. Sometime I really need to reconcile these musical tastes. Dave .----------------------------------------------dmanning@dreamland.unomaha.edu | "There's something the matter with me" dmanning@cwis.unomaha.edu | --Intermix dmanning@eworld.com .-------------------------------------------- dgmanning@aol.com

Howdy,

quoted 2 lines I didn't know that it is now illegal to manufacture and sell scanners.

> I didn't know that it is now illegal to manufacture and sell scanners. > Are you sure this is right?

I don't know about the US of A (as its supposed to be the land of the free :), but down here in Australia it's illegal to sell and own a scanner. Arbituary music question: I've only heard the hidden Scanner track on the ltd edition AI2 compilation and I was wondering how the rest of their stuff compares to it? Thanks. Regards, John /-------------------------------------------------------------------\ | JOHN BUS (aka. JOHNNY TURBO) | | SNAIL - Digital Access | | Box 13, 7 Sagar Place North Ryde 2113 Australia | | EMAIL - John.Bus@syd.dcet.csiro.au OR turbo@twister.apana.org.au | \-------------------------------------------------------------------/