robviti

count me out. i'm in favor of the changes to the feedback system. that whole "this seller sucks. Oh yeah, well this buyer really sucks" situation was never very useful to me. sellers shouldn't worry about criticism unless there's a pattern of negative comments against them, and there are still protections in place to deal with potential scammers. funny how the boycott is spear-headed by a collectible doll dealer and someone who sells clothing for dolls. those kind of people just creep me out.

I found an informative discussion of the legal issues in the "keeping a burn after selling the cd" topic. It comes from the Patry Copyright Blog run by William Patry, Senior Copyright Counse for Google and former copyright counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary. I've reprinting his post below, but I encourage you to click on this link to read the thoughtful replies from his readers: copyright blog. First Sale, Hard Copies, and Digital Copies Here's an article from the October 23, 2005 New Jersey Star-Ledger. I confess to being baffled by it. It seems to misunderstand the issue entirely. Perhaps readers can point me in the correct direction. Here's the article in toto: "Contrary to the opinions of a number of readers, I am not a law breaker. At least, I don't think I am. In a recent column about my transition to an all-digital music collection, I mentioned a plan to sell my CDs after creating digital copies on my personal computer. Quite a few readers wrote to tell me this would be illegal. If you sell the CD or give it away, they informed me, you must delete the digital versions, as the rights to keep a copy of the song reside with the owner of the CD. Was this true? What if I have a 10-year-old CD, with a couple of songs I enjoy? Does that mean I am breaking the law if I keep those songs on my iPod after selling the CD for $1 at a garage sale? I decided to investigate. As is the case with many legal issues, a clear answer wasn't readily available. But at least it is now clear to me how hazy an issue it is. "The law is terribly unclear on this question," says Fred Von Lohmann, a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy group for consumers' digital rights. "It's very hard to give any kind of clear answer." Courts might view the situation differently, depending on an individual's behavior, he says. Are you a "buy, rip, and return kind of guy," essentially making digital copies from CDs and then returning them? Or are you, like me, getting rid of physical CDs that you no longer use, simply because you have the music on your computer and you now buy songs from the iTunes Music Store? "The law gives precious little clarity to the average person," Von Lohmann says. An academic specialist in cyberspace aspects of intellectual property echoed Von Lohmann's views. Whether you can keep digital music files on your PC or iPod after you sell your CDs is legally "untested," says R. Anthony Reese, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin. Reese says he doesn't know of any court cases dealing with this scenario. Given existing copyright law, he says, it is "not easy to predict how a test case would come out." Yet the issue isn't a purely academic one. More and more people are facing this dilemma, as they have no use for the CDs taking up space in the bulky, archaic racks in their living rooms. They use their iPods to listen to music on their home stereos, cars, and elsewhere. Do they really need to store their CDs in their attics in order to avoid breaking the law? Yes, according to music industry representatives, though they were unable to provide any real legal backing for that view. A spokesperson for the Recording Industry Association of America, the group known for filing lawsuits to stop digital-music swapping, pointed me to a document from the Copyright Office to support the idea that you aren't allowed to keep a digital music file once you sell the physical CD. But the document -- see for yourself, [DMCA Report Executive summary, my link]-- sheds little, if any, light on the issue. I e-mailed a top industry executive, whose assistant contacted me to say my rights to digital music would end when I sell the physical CD. But the executive was apparently wary of expressing that view in public, as his assistant suggested I refer to him as "an unnamed industry source." A spokesperson for Warner Music Group referred me back to the RIAA. But the industry's message, that you must be wary about what you do with music you store on your PC, is clearly making it out there, judging from the e-mails from readers who were convinced that what I was doing was illegal. Don't expect to hear about a resolution to this issue anytime soon. The music industry is unlikely to press it in court, what with its other concerns. But if it is discussed, you will be sure to hear about it at LawMeme (research.yale.edu/lawmeme/), a Weblog covering the intersection of law and technology. TECHscan Political news junkies have yet another source: C-SPAN's CapitalNews (www.capitalnews.org), a news operation that's designed for people who want to keep tabs, 24/7, on what's happening on Capitol Hill, the White House and the national political scene. Allan Hoffman may be reached at netscan@allanhoffman.com or in care of The Star-Ledger, 1 Star-Ledger Plaza, Newark, N.J. 07102. " Here's my reaction to the story: If one links on to the Executive Summary to the Copyright Office's DMCA report provided above, at pages 6-8 , you will find discussion of a proposal to amend the first sale doctrine in Section 109 to provide that where someone's lawfully made copy for 109 purposes was in digital form, that copy could be transmitted to a friend etc., so long as the "original" digital copy is deleted. The Office agreed that the current Section 109 is technologically neutral; that is it applies to lawfully made digital copies, but it declined to endorse the proposal both because of perceived differences in the way hard copy and digital copies degrade and because of doubts about verification of deletion. But nothing in the report, or the law I am familiar with, says that if you own a lawfully made hard copy, like a CD, and you then make, for personal use, a digital copy, you can't sell the CD. Of course you can. You can sell your lawfully made CD even if the making of your digital copying is illegal: absent some contract provision, the two issues are totally separate. --William Patry

aw heck, we might as well burst another bubble while we're at it: THE STRAIGHT DOPE Does the Vatican have the world's largest pornography collection? 26-Mar-1982 Dear Cecil: Is it true that the Vatican has the world's most extensive collection of erotica and pornography locked away where no one who can appreciate it can see it? --M.B., Baltimore Dear M.: I haven't had a chance to check this out personally, M., having been detained with Grafenberg spot research. But having spoken with parties who know, I can tell you that if it's a truly monster porn collection you want, you don't need to leave the U.S.A. Years ago a couple researchers from the Kinsey Institute in Bloomington, Indiana, made an attempt to inspect the Vatican's collections, but church officials refused to permit it. Subsequently, however, it was learned that the Vatican had arranged to have its holdings microfilmed during World War II, when it was feared Rome would be bombed. The film is now stored at St. Louis University in Missouri. The Kinsey folks looked through all the material and found a few mildly erotic art items, but virtually nothing since the Renaissance. From this they concluded that stories about the Vatican's 100,000 books of porn are naught but a myth. Not everyone buys this, of course. The more conspiracy-minded among us argue that the Vatican wouldn't be dumb enough to microfilm the smut section. One of my correspondents claims the Vatican library has (or had, anyway) thousands of erotic volumes, most of them file copies of works that appeared on the Catholic Church's well-known Index of Prohibited Books. This fellow says he spent time in a World War II concentration camp with a Vatican librarian, who gave him a tour of the library in 1945. He says many of the books, "mainly the illustrated volumes," have since disappeared. Well, maybe. Most researchers, however, doubt that the Vatican has or ever had much genuine smut on the shelves. Gershon Legman, a prominent student of erotica who helped compile a bibliography of porn for Alfred Kinsey, says the Vatican "has no really erotic books," although there are some fairly tame volumes from the classical era. For instance, a copy of Ovid's The Art of Love is filed with Latin poetry, and Aristophanes' Lysistrata is with Greek drama. The Vatican also has some erotic specimens among its art holdings, including, among other things, some drawings by Michelangelo featuring various phallic fantasies. In addition there is a famous collection of erotic frescoes designed by Raphael in 1516 and executed by his students in the bathroom of a certain Cardinal Bibbiena. The frescoes, which are badly deteriorated today, consist of scenes involving Venus and Cupid, Cupid and Psyche, and Vulcan and Pallas, and one would be hard put to describe them as even mildly titillating. That's not to say hard-core porn is unknown in Rome. A student of Raphael's by the name of Guilio Romano produced some explicit erotic art, in particular a series of 20 drawings of various parties having intercourse and such that even by modern standards would be considered pretty out there. These were turned over to an engraver and printed up in book form. Pope Clement VII was outraged and had the engraver heaved into prison, but copies of the book continued to circulate clandestinely in Europe for centuries. Whether the Vatican has a copy today I dunno, but they ought to--most good university art collections do. As for the Index of Prohibited Books (which, by the way, was discontinued in 1966), I've taken a look at it, and you could probably come up with a racier bunch of titles in your average Walgreen's. About 1,500 books and/or authors are listed; of the small percentage alleged to be "obscene" (obscenity was just one of 12 categories of forbidden works, the remainder having to do with heresies and the like), many were written by such famous authors as Honore de Balzac, Alexandre Dumas (both father and son), Emile Zola, Anatole France, and Victor Hugo. None of the erotic "classics" (e.g., Fanny Hill, the works of de Sade) were listed, maybe because the Vatican figured they were of such limited circulation they weren't worth worrying about. In short, I think the legendary Vatican pornography collection is a crock. Most of the stories you hear about it are undoubtedly part of the folklore that surrounds any large, old, secretive institution (the Masons are another case in point). However, there are some truly awesome smut depots out there, if you're into that kind of thing. The municipal museum of Naples, for instance, is said to have an amazing collection erotic artifacts, most of them classical in origin--fornicating satyrs and so forth. The British Museum in London has a famous "Private Case" collection of erotica bequeathed to it by eccentric Victorians that at one time was said to number 20,000 volumes, although theft, vandalism and other causes have reduced it to somewhere between 1,800 and 5,000 volumes, depending on who's counting. In Paris the Bibliotheque Nationale's famous L'Enfer ("hell") collection contains 4-5,000 volumes. Initially I thought the largest collection of all was held by the Kinsey Institute (formally known as the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction) on the campus of Indiana University at Bloomington. When I checked there were 12,000 books, 50,000 photographs, 25,000 pieces of flat art, 3,700 films, and 1,300 art objects, such as figurines. Subsequently I learned that an even larger collection was owned by the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco, which as of the early 90s had 289,000 films and 100,000 videos. The Kinsey archive spans the ages, but it's safe to say the vast majority of items in these collections is of recent origin. The fact is that color photography, the high-speed offset press, and, more recently, the videocassette have resulted in a profusion of erotica that makes the porn collections of Europe seem positively quaint. --CECIL ADAMS

having only owned (and enjoyed) the cd, i hadn't ever seen the original cover until now:

greetings danimal! looks like we have another person to hang with at the chicago jazz festival and the after-fest sets at the velvet.

aw, why'd ya have to drag me into this.

i agree. and resurrecting a three-year-old thread doesn't make a whole lotta sense either.

hey chuck the album is oop- and not coming to cd - EVER! if someone really wants to hear the music shouldn't they have the opportunity? otherwise it is lost forever! "lost" how is it lost? it exists in the form of a 2-lp set, one that can be purchased. the fact is someone doesn't want to pay what it costs to own this rare item. i'm not saying your actions are wrong necessarily, just your rationale. what i think is wrong is members of this board openly soliciting the trade/sale/whatever of copyrighted material on a board graciously run by a band who is planning a future within the music industry. why would anyone want to incur even the littlest bit of risk to them, just to own a hard-to-find recording? there are more subtle ways to do this without insulting our hosts.

Indeed, almost 3 years later I'm plowing through a copy of Professor Lewis' book and he makes exactly the same point that Mr. Nessa has. The connection is entirely overstated, and Ornette was a bigger influence than Sun Ra. Probably the individual associated with the AACM that Sun Ra impacted the most was Phil Cohran, who left the AACM very early on to forge his own path. most sites list lewis's book as being available 5/1/08. did you get an advance copy?

i'm definitely interested in this pairing, but what's this got to do with live shows and festivals?

heaven help me, but when i hear that accent, one person comes to mind...

why you little twerp, you start this whole thing!

simply wonderful. many thanks. what strikes me most about shows like this is that it hearkens back to a time when jazz, and people in general, were treated with more respect and intelligence that they are today. i'm sure it wasn't the norm, but it's a real eye-opener to see and hear people take the music and the musicians seriously. i've had a chance to view jazz performances on noneducational shows as well, and it just seems like it was a different time and even a different society altogether back then. perhaps i am a pessimist ( as someone mentioned in another thread), but i just don't think we'll ever recapture that sense of curiosity and hunger for discovery in music ever again.

you guys have got me curious, so i bean checking out some of the performances on youtube. first off, the wonderful keely smith and kid rock, who to me has all the appeal of a piece of driftwood. btw, here's what old black magic should look/sound like: old black magic

nothing personal, but...

i had the same reaction, dan. it must be 15 years or more since i watched the grammys. looking at the grammy website, it's really pitiful the kind of money-making crap that gets nominated. no wonder winehouse won five, look who she's competing against in most categories. as far as herbie goes, his big win just confirmed what i've been thinking for the past several years. the herbie we knew and loved is dead, but the music industry saw an opportunity to keep making money off his name, so they pulled a clever switch. that ain't herbie up there, it's a ... rockit robot!

that would make him a victim of soycumstance! nyuck, nyuck

I was perusing the Vanguard website and came upon this listing: Mar 25 - Mar 30, TEDDY CHARLES QUINTET. Honestly, I didn't know the 75-year-old vibist was still alive! A look at Teddy's website offers this lineup: * Teddy Charles - Vibraphone * Chris Byars - Saxophone * John Mosca - Trombone * Ari Roland - Bass * Stefan Schatz - Drums P.S. It looks like Teddy is quite the mariner, and has been making a living as such: teddy-charles.com

i personally don't like the use of the word "pimpin'." i know some people argue it doesn't mean what it used to, but that's not the whole picture, is it? actually, it does mean the same thing in many situations. to this day, prostitutes continue to be exploited, battered, and even murdered by the men who profit from them. setting that aside for a moment, i'm just not comfortable with the general population using terms that have been used to denigrate groups of people, rationalizing that it's okay because that's not what i meant. i understand the concept of certain groups taking back terms that once were used to put them down, like homosexuals referring to one another as "fags." jim might be right, but i don't look forward to the day when it's acceptable for some kid to say "nigger," "cunt," "kike," etc. because it doesn't mean that anymore.

i find nothing funny, amusing, or entertaining about a heroin addict with a hit song about refusing to go to rehab. it's just sad and stupid imo. as far as her talent goes, i'll wait until she sobers up (if she ever does) and make my decision based on whatever's left.

henry grimes, henry grimes, henry grimes!

according to amg (i know, i know): Trumpeter John Burks worked under Johnny Hodges, Louis Bellson, and Eddie "Cleanhead" Vinson.

all done wearing 'em, are ya?

years ago andrew worked at the tower records in boston, back when they actually had a jazz dept. a very funny and helpful guy, and a hell of an alto player. i saw human feel play a few times back then and he and the rest of the band were smokin'. please help if you can.