Aggie87

+1 Jay has always seemed to be a weak link during late night, IMO. The funniest things about his show are the Jaywalking sketches and the Headlines - neither of which focus on Jay. Conan has settled into a solid show, for the most part. He was trying too hard early on, IMO, but now it seems to flow a bit more naturally.

According to Wikipedia, his monologues are improvised, making them all the more impressive (assuming Wiki's correct). I'd love to see him in a comedy club.

He may be the funniest guy on late night these days.

Well, I'm certainly not comparing this to anything else he's done, but it's a fun album on it's on terms. I don't have that much Lateef, and I'm guessing this one is a left turn of sorts from what he'd done previously.

On a pc, you can run the program "Charmap.exe", and it will provide you with all of the non-English characters.

The whole interview is must-read stuff, not just the excerpt in the original post.

I think you'll like it here. In many respects, it's a better place than over there. There are a few characters amongst us, but the moderation here is alot better, IMO. PS - Can you rename yourself "JazzLobster"?

Not from there, but I've visited Copehagen twice (a long time ago!) It's a beautiful city! I believe Christiern is originally from Denmark, perhaps he can offer you insight to the culture and life there.

I recently received a copy of Autophysiopsychic from Conn (thx for the Conn-tribution!), and am playing it for the first time today. The first few seconds caught me off guard, thinking I was going to hear a disco album. But after that it settled down into some decent funk, and it's a blast! It's defintely of it's time, but it's fun. Art Farmer has some nice phrases here and there as well.

My whole thesis in this thread (and previous ones) has been about illegal copies of the music, not the buying and selling of used cds. I buy and sell used cds in person and on this board, and don't have a problem with doing so. Again, buying and selling used cds is no different conceptually from buying a used car. Two people have owned one car (at different times, as you say), but the manufacturer has only been compensated once. The difference is that the first owner wasn't able to keep a copy of the car when he sold it. If he had, then 2 cars would be in existence, and Ford only got paid for one. They'd be screaming bloody murder legally if that were possible. Some people choose to buy new cars for various reasons, some people choose to buy used. Same with CDs. The artist WAS compensated for a CD that is out on the market, just like Ford was for that car. The fact that both change hands on the used market DOESN'T change the FACT that the car and cd both generated compensation for the creator on the first sale. At that point the artist/manufacturer's compensation is over. The secondary market is not part of their purview. Again (and again and again...) the artist was compensated by the legitimate purchase of the first CD. That it changes hands later on is of no consequence - the artist has been compensated. The fact that Take5 created an extra copy and didn't compensate the artist is the problem. Take5 has the right to possess digital copies of the CD while he owns it, but that right or license is allowed only to the owner of the CD, not any previous owner - which is what Take5 became when he sold the CD.

The public good in this context is unfettered access to music without which a particular form of cultural deepening through accretion cannot occur . The public earns such free use by the grant of an unnatural monopoly to the copyright holder for a limited time. Musical copyright protection is only justified to the extent that it promotes the greatest amount of creative musical expression for all to enjoy . It's a measure of just how firmly the United States has been in the grip of individualist ideology recently , that people don't understand what public goods are anymore . I don't believe in "unfettered access" to music, then. Being able to "own" music isn't for the public good in the sense that access to health care is, and I don't see how that can be argued. Music is the creation of individual artists, not a public right. Justifying illegal behavior by saying it's for the public good is just as much an individualist ideology as anything. In fact, it's a copout.

What is the "public good"? Someone's right to have whatever they want, regardless of how they get it?

I'm not sure what you're asking - my philosophical commitment has been stated about 100 times already. Illegal digital copies of music are morally wrong, and don't help the artists who make the music that I like.

What you are doing is effectively the same as the people who are downloading it illegally. You've created a copy of the music that is just as illegal to possess (since you no longer own the license to have that digital copy, which you sold with the CD) as the one that is downloaded illegally. I'm sure the artist that produced that particular album would see that he's sold one copy of the CD, and yet you AND the person who bought your used cd now both have a copy of it. So he's sold one copy but two are out there. Is that o.k. from the artist's perspective? Do you care whether the artist gets what he's due for those two copies of the music? Because he/she is not.

Did you buy him a sammich?

My god man! I just noticed you have over fifteen thousand posts. ... And he's not even in first place!

What the heck is a Dongle???

Pats, Kraft, Belichick sued for $100M NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- A lawsuit filed Friday by a former St. Louis Rams player and others seeks millions of dollars in damages from the alleged taping of Rams practices by the New England Patriots before the 2002 Super Bowl. The Patriots won the game 20-17 in the Superdome. The $100 million suit, filed on behalf of former Rams player Willie Gary in U.S. District Court in New Orleans, names the Patriots, team owner Robert Kraft and head coach Bill Belichick.

Bev (and Clave) - I'm totally on board with legal downloads, which is what you both are referring to. I've bought items from DGM and Dave Douglas directly, as well as other band websites that I frequent. I think that's a good business model for the future - or at least a step in the right direction. I've bought some vinyl from the label Yep Roc in the past year, and when you do that, they immediately make available MP3's of the music you have just purchased - before you even receive the vinyl in the mail.

What "seems obvious" is not "law." WHERE specifically is this addressed, or does it just seem illegal to you because you think it should be? Perhaps someone with a legal background can answer this better than me. When you buy a license to do something, and later sell the license, how can you possibly still own the license?

I generally agree with this And my arguments all have to do with illegal downloading or copying of music, not legitimate downloading.

Unless I missed it, you have not yet cited where this concept is legally addressed, or if anyone has tried to enforce it. I understand the moral side of the question, but you haven't convinced me that it's ILLEGAL. Please enlighten me. The CD is what gives you your legal license to make *and* possess a copy of the music contained on it. If you sell the CD, you no longer have the legal license - it transfers with ownership of the cd. This seems self-obvious to me. I'm not sure how to spell this out any more than that.

It's up to your individual ethics and moral compass I guess. Illegal copying contributes to a negative spiral - it results in fewer sales of music, and is helping to destroy the industry. Labels shut down, get bought out and shuttered, inventory ends up in some storage facility in some mountain somewhere, never to be seen again, and people lose their jobs. Availability of music dwindles, and artists lose established avenues to provide us music.

Uh oh....

Because you possess a copy which you aren't legally entitled to possess. It's a lost sale, which makes it morally or ethically wrong too, IMO. I sympathise with the artist and producers of the music in this situation (obviously )