Alexander

Brick and mortar for me. Lately, I've been paying cash for all of my purchases (ease up on the credit card debt) which means I haven't bought on-line in some time. Pop, rock, hip hop and other such "mainstream" musics are purchased at Best Buy (which is generally cheap, even moreso when the CD is new). Jazz, blues, and other less "mainstream" sounds are usually purchased at Borders or Barnes and Noble. My LPs are purchased at a couple of local used stores. I sometimes find used CDs as well, although the selection is usually pretty poor in that medium. When I start working full time (currently have two part-time gigs), I might be able to start getting things on-line again.

But now your friend is getting an illegal copy of that music, for which the artists etc received no compensation. Your original copy is fine and legitimate. Don't you get that? From the artist's perspective, how is this different from a used CD sale? Guy My point exactly, thank you. In both cases, the artist was compensated once, when the original copy was sold new. In both cases, the music is passed on to another listener without compensation to the artist (or other copyright holders). If you object to burning on ethical grounds, you must also object to the buying/selling of used CDs.

Agreed. I don't have a problem with that list. I'd really like to see Grandmaster Flash get it. If anyone deserves to get in, he does. Which raises the question: How many hip hop artists are in the R&R Hall of Fame? How many are MCs? How many are DJs?

They did get paid for the used copy, on its original purchase. That's the difference. They aren't getting paid on the copies you burn for your friends. When you are comparing buying a used copy versus buying a new copy, then I think the artist would obviously prefer you buy the new copy, since that results in an additional sale and revenue. But that used copy did what it was manufactured to do, already. The burned copy does not result in payment to anyone who is entitled to payment for that recording. If I'm burning a CD for a friend, then the artist got paid when I bought MY original copy. You are assuming that I didn't pay for the disc from which I am copying.

I should think that it's implied. I know that I've mentioned "copyright holders" several times.

Can you honestly say to the musicians and producers who are regulars on this board that you would copy their CDs and pass them along to friends? Witthout any concern that it's robbing them of income that just might enable them to continue producing this music that we all love? You don't have an ethical problem with that? They ARE your victims in your so-called victimless crime. There's obvious difference when one "buys local," so to speak. When you buy a CD by a local musican (or an unsigned (or unsigned by a major lable anyway) musican selling CDs on the net) you're not just buying a piece of music, but are literally "supporting the arts." You know that this musican depends on your purchase to support his music. I'll gladly pay full price for that, and do so often (I own, among other things, both Organissimo CDs). What I'm talking about is major lable artists (the Justin Timberlakes of the world) who don't depend on my purchase to make their rent. You may not recognize a difference, but I do. Here's a question, though, to all of the musicans on the board: How WOULD you feel if I came upon one of your discs in a used store or being sold used online? Would it bother you if I bought it, or would you prefer that I buy a new copy? And if you don't mind me buying the used copy, how would burning a copy be worse? You don't get paid ether way.

I cannot WAIT to see "Borat." Baron Cohen is the heir of Andy Kaufman. The Borat material I've seen on "Da Ali G" show is hysterical!

But according to the copy-right laws, while the CD belongs to you, the music does not. The music belongs to the copy-right holders. Try selling a blank CD. Nobody's going to want it. It's not the CD the potential buyer wants, but the music contained therein. On-line stores like iTunes and eMusic sell music that exists purely as information. The idea is that because the copy-right holder is getting something out of the sale, it's kosher for them to sell it. But it's not kosher for you or I to sell or give away the same music because it does not belong to us. Only the CD or record in it's physical manfestation belongs to you. Personally, I buy used and a copy CD for and from friends, so I have no ethical problem with above. As far as I'm concerned, it's a victimless crime. There's more potential for harm from speeding or running a yellow-light, but most of us will do both without a second thought if we believe we can get away with it. Why all the hand-wringing over this issue? I understand why the musicians and other music industry-associated people on the board feel this way, but what about the rest of you? Remember, I spent a lot of time on the other side of the cash register (which is probably what made me so cynical). As I understand it, it is not the individual sale from which the record company/artist derive their cut, but rather the wholesale of the product to the stores themselves. This is why Justin Timberlake or Mariah Carey can have a CD debut at number one on the Billboard chart the day it is released. What happens is that Best Buy, Borders, FYE, etc. will buy titles like Timberlake and Carey's in bulk. It is *that* sale which produces the album's chart position and it is *that* sale from which the copyright holder profits. Do you really think that Hank Mobley's estate gets a nickle or something every time one of his CDs sold in a point-of-sale purchase? EMI gets the money from the wholesaler, who gets its money from the retailer. The retailer gets its money from the customer. That's how the cash flows here. In otherwords, Justin and Mariah get paid even if NO COPIES of their CDs sell. Now, if they don't sell any CDs, Best Buy isn't going to pay for the next release, and Justin and Mariah won't get any cash. Used buying, burning, and illegal downloads contribute *somewhat* to the drop in demand (but much less than people assume, according to most studies), but far worse for CD sales are the high prices on new releases, the general decline in quality of a good deal of popular music, and (most importantly) the fact that DVDs, video games, and other forms of entertainment are providing a lot of competition for the public's dollar. People spend less on music on average because they spend more time in front of the TV, not because they are burning CDs off their friends or even downloading illegally. For myself, as I've said, I don't do illegal downloads (unless the product is ITSELF illegal, as in the case of Danger Mouse's "The Grey Album").

But as I mentioned on the other board, buying a used CD and receiving a copy of said CD amounts to the same amount of compensation to the artist: $0. If that is the case, then what harm is it really to make a copy and give it to a friend? If that same friend bought a used copy of the CD in question, the artist would not be one penny the richer for it. On the other hand, most people regard burns as being less "real" than a commercial copy of a CD (I know I do). Listening to the burn may well inspire a sale, which the purchase of the used CD will not (since you already have a commercial copy). This situation is made still more grey when the practice of LEGAL downloading (as in the case of eMusic or iTunes) is introduced. When I purchase a CD through iTunes, there is no physical object that comes into my possession. Rather, I have purchased files that are downloaded to my computer. If I choose to put those files on my iPod, then there will be two copies of the same album. I can lend my iPod to my wife, for example, and still listen to the music on my hard-drive. Two copies, but only once sale price. This is further complicated when I burn a CD of the music I legally purchased. iTunes, in fact, allows me to burn up to five copies of purchased music (although there are obviously ways around that). Now, once again, I have only paid once, but I can have up to SEVEN copies of the music in circulation (the files on my hard-drive, the files on my iPod, and as many as FIVE CD copies).

My sister first told me about Guy Fawkes Day when we were kids, and she told me that the English were celebrating Guy Fawkes. As an adult I came to the conclusion that they were celebrating the fact that he was caught. Quite the plan. Blow up Parliament, and replace the king with a Catholic. Right up my alley! "Remember, remember the 5th of November. The gun-powder treason and plot. I know no reason the gun-powder treason Should ever be forgot."

Sorry for the redundant post, Jim. I hadn't read the whole thread when I posted.

I've always known Natalie as an R&B/soul singer. I was saddened when she felt the need to trade on her father's name and reputation. It's a pity, because she was quite good in the 70s.

"Oh...a handful of change. I could use this to...buy some candy. So thank you for adding a step to my Halloween process." - Homestar Runner

The House that Gave Sucky Treats!!! Play along!

Given the padding I've gotten over what I regard as a fairly innocent statement, I didn't want to get people riled up by defaming my late Aunt. She was an amazing woman, but impractical as hell. My uncle said it best at her funeral: She was too good for this world.

Honestly, how often does stuff like this happen in the movies? When was the last time you saw a Christian killed or otherwise persecuted for his or her beliefs in a movie? And if they are, isn't there always implied punishment or retribution? Why can't I enjoy the little fantasy the filmmakers have spun here without committing a hate crime? Did I say I was going to run out and burn a Christian? I love "Kill Bill" too. Does that mean that I hate the Japanese (since Uma kills so many of them)? I love "Taxi Driver." Does that mean that I want to go around shooting at politicians or pimps? Most people are not John Hinkley, Jr. We recognize fantasy and we react accordingly. Yes, I cackled with evil glee at the plight of the policeman in "The Wicker Man." I also cackle with evil glee when Samuel Jackson blows people away in "Pulp Fiction." This reminds me of my aunt Sharon (may she rest in peace). Shay used to try to make me feel guilty for watching violent movies or TV shows, or for reading comics she considered violent or sexist (I remember her getting very upset when she saw me reading a copy of "Elektra: Assassin" which she considered pretty much porn). I understand that people have different sensiblities and that one man's meat is another man's poison, but come on. I enjoy a lot of things other people might find offensive on some level (Crumb comics, Eminem music). I refuse to apologize for getting a kick out of a movie. Or is there a right way to enjoy a movie?

Isn't that like a neo-Nazi saying "How can you not love American History X, where a black guy is viciously killed by being curb stomped by the skinhead?" I don't find much humor in your comment, even though I hope it was tongue-in-cheek... WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD Have you seen the movie? That's the big payoff. The zealous Christian policeman is burned alive by Christopher Lee and the pagan villagers. And no, it wasn't really tongue-in-cheek. I was actively cheering for the pagans by the end of the movie (the Christian policeman is a real prick). If you haven't seen it, it's about a Scottish policeman who visits a tiny island off the coast of Scotland called Summerisle. He's there to investigate an anonymous tip he's received about a missing girl. When he gets there, he finds that none of villagers will even acknowledge the girl's existence. Evidence starts piling up that 1) Something happened to this girl that nobody is willing to talk about, and 2) That these are some seriously weird people. They are sexual libertines who copulate in the fields. They raise their children to have pagan beliefs and worship a sun god and a harvest goddess. The policeman (who is a devout Christian) is really offended by these people and he keeps trying to talk Jesus with them. No one is interested. He finally confronts the Lord who owns the island (Christopher Lee) who tells him that the people here are content with their beliefs. And that if he (the policeman) is so offended, he should leave before the Mayday festivities begin. The policeman does a little research on the pagan origins of Mayday, and comes to the conclusion that the missing girl is about to sacrificed to appease the gods of the harvest (since the island suffered a poor harvest the year before). The policeman tries to stop it, but in so doing he learns the horrible truth: The girl is fine. She was never missing or in any danger. She is, in fact, bait to get HIM to come to the island. So they can sacrifice HIM. And so they do. They burn him alive. Our last image of the policeman praying to God for deliverance while the pagans sing hand-in-hand around him like the Whos in "The Grinch." He is not delivered. The pagans do not pay for his death. The implication is that no one will ever know what happened to him. The last shot is of a setting sun. End of movie. It totally rocked!

I had never seen this before I caught it at a midnight screening last night. What a fantastic movie! Very suspenseful! Christopher Lee is AMAZING as Lord Summerisle (I was expecting something more in the line of his Hammer horror films, not a hip, easy-going aristocrat). Edward Woodward is note perfect as the priggish detective. And Britt Eckland is gorgeous! Sure, it's a bit dated, but it really packed a punch! And how can you not love a movie where they burn Christians alive without consequences?

Did you know that Bart was Paul Giamatti's father? He was also president of Yale from 1977 to 1986.

I got "The Stuff That Dreams Are Made Of" when it came out, and I love it. It ranks up there with the Harry Smith "Anthology," the "Goodbye Babylon" box set from Dust-to-Digital, and the Bussard "Down in the Basement" collection. I'm a big fan of old-time blues and country myself, and this set is full of gems. I'm a little miffed about the lack of discographical data, however. The Crumb art (and the strip included in the booklet) is wonderful. I love Crumb's work (I recently reread a wonderful collection of his collaborations with Harvey Pekar). I reviewed the Yazoo set, along with the Bussard collection, for All About Jazz a few months back. Here's a link. The title was not my idea.

Not only does The Musical Box dress up, the actually use the original costumes and sets from the 1970s Genesis shows! In all of the ads for their show, they feature a quote in which Peter Gabriel himself says that "they play Genesis better than Genesis." That could be read as a compliment to The Musical Box, but also as a slam at his former bandmates. After all, I don't think that reformed Genesis (minus Gabriel and Hackett) could perform all of "Selling England By The Pound..."

Very funny! Reminds me of those Warner Brothers cartoons where book and magazine covers come to life (like "Book Revue").

They're playing in Schenectady on Sunday. Pity I'm broke, because I love the album "Selling England By The Pound" and that's what they're performing.

I saw this the other day. Since we're so close to a working cloaking device, how far off can warp drive be?

I skimmed the article so maybe they did mention it, but I was surprised that "Seinfeld" didn't seem to rate a mention. "Seinfeld" had no opening sequence, just the little bass riff that was used throughout the show.