IDM Mailing Archive

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

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

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

"under the radar" <analog_life@hotmail.com> writes:

quoted 5 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.

Which reminds me. Until further notice, I grant AND ALL ANY STREAMING WEBCASTERS full permission to stream any String Theory tracks they may have in their possession royalty-free, so long as they provide a playlist or something so people who hear it can find out what that bangin' cut they just heard was :) Seriously. I wonder how soon the RIAA will get a check to us for the royalties they plan on collecting "for our benefit"... Josh -- -- String Theory -- http://www.enteract.com/~yoshi/index.cgi -- String Theory's Anhedonia CD/LP available at finer music stores worldwide --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

quoted 2 lines Seriously. I wonder how soon the RIAA will get a check to us for the

> >Seriously. I wonder how soon the RIAA will get a check to us for the

royalties they plan on collecting "for our benefit"... Probably as soon as you register with SoundExchange, one of the "Designated Agents" in the bill.... -- j-a --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

Wonderful. String theory is awesome. Anhedonia is a fantastic album. I had it on rotation with the previous playlist I was running. I will put it back into rotation with the next one. Personally, I will continue to run my webcasts as long as I can. I will report back if anyone tries to stop me.... Shimone/Justes http://www.staticbeats.com | Electronic Music > Digital Culture ----- Original Message ----- From: "String Theory" <string@onshore.com> To: <idm@hyperreal.org> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 9:24 AM Subject: [idm] Streaming License

quoted 3 lines "under the radar" <analog_life@hotmail.com> writes:

> "under the radar" <analog_life@hotmail.com> writes: > > > When I say "pirating", I don't mean using artists music to make a

profit, I

quoted 3 lines mean simply playing music over the web using streaming technology. Of

> > 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

quoted 20 lines people via what ever channels it may be.

> > people via what ever channels it may be. > > > Which reminds me. > > Until further notice, I grant AND ALL ANY STREAMING WEBCASTERS full > permission to stream any String Theory tracks they may have in their > possession royalty-free, so long as they provide a playlist or > something so people who hear it can find out what that bangin' cut > they just heard was :) > > Seriously. I wonder how soon the RIAA will get a check to us for the > royalties they plan on collecting "for our benefit"... > > Josh > > -- > -- String Theory > -- http://www.enteract.com/~yoshi/index.cgi > -- String Theory's Anhedonia CD/LP available at finer music stores

worldwide

quoted 4 lines ---------------------------------------------------------------------

> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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