JSngry

I don't "embrace" anything that I don't want to embrace me back, and that's very few things. But I do tend to like to know where the cars are on the street, especially the moving ones, so I don't get hit while crossing or walking around. Seems the older i get, the faster they drive, so the risk of getting run over increases exponentially.

It's not "my" side, Chuck, it's reality.

No, you get criticized for not allowing any breathing room in which for evolution to occur.

Maybe so, but I gotta live like it's a fight not yet finished. The fight for responsible techno-society evolution. Not the fight for '59 Impalas...

Exactly. Which is why freedom and responsibility much be equal. But "don't ever do it" is not freedom, & "I want it all" is not responsibility. When there are failures (and god knows there are), it is of individual character, not of collective technology. "We" are still very much a work in progress.

Not trying to stir up shit, and I can't say I completely disagree with you, but this sounds a heck of a lot like that "I want it, so I'm entitled" camp down the street... Might sound like it, but it's not, believe me. Having once been young, poor/struggling/whatever with a ravenous appetite to learn (not to "have" but to learn), I know that I was the beneficiary of many "acts of kindness", and truthfully, still am. Letting that cycle end with me is nothing but ingratitude, the personification of arrogance and selfishness. "Business considerations" aside, the tyoe of music we're talkng about is a gift, was made to be heard, shared, not hoarded. That is the spirit so much of this music. So it is kinda difficult for me too get too bent out of shape about the notion of hiungry people getting fed, although it's also my feeling that once they've been fed, they damn well have an obligation to get up from the table and do something good, not just sty seated and continue to gorge. A favor not returned is nothing but the bloatation of greed.

but seriously... I know pretty much for a fact that there is an enormous amount of "sharing" of OOP material that goes on between the members of this community. An enormous amount.And ain't nobody established a fund to collect monies to pay nobody nothing. Nor a committee to call peoples up and see how much they want for what is being done to their stuff. So ok, that's "between friends". Cool. But... there's only a handful of friends here that have ever seen each other in person once. Virtual communities, Virtual Friends, Blogs, it's all part of the same sociological continuum. Wh draws the line? Where? And how to guarantee that is stays drawn? Pandora's Box yet again.

Well, you're about as realistic as one...

You don't think that blogs are selling music, do you? As far as internet radio shows, podcasts, etc. the situation is apparently no longer as simple as that...

As I look at it, there's a distinction as to the degree of potential economic damage, but not when it comes to the violation of the intellectual rights. And your solution is, what? Avoid the Shirley Scott albums altogether unless and until Universal/Whoever decides to put them out? Ok, who benefits from that and how, especially if the "unless & until" = never. Go ahead and download the Shirley Scott albums and then contact Universal/Whoever & say, "Here's what I got. I wanna make it right. How much do I owe ya'?"? And they will say, "My name is not Scott, you must have the wrong number." There is not currently a system in place to adequately address and protect all these concerns as they apply to currently available public technologies, true. Does archival "marginal" music get held hostage, perhaps even to die, as a result? I can hear LP Jesus now, "whatsoever you did in order to save the least of them, so did ye to me." I don't know 'bout y'all, but I ain't fuckin' with LP Jesus.

And I'm saying that absolutes, unmovable, unyielding absolutes, exist as nothing other than the endpoints between which reality is positioned. If you discover a different reality, congratulations. I just hope that it actually is a reality... I'm genuinely puzzled by your apparent confidence in the ambiguity of this specific case. I have no ambiguity at all about this specific case. Read back, it's there - this Saturn outfit blows. Unambiguously so. Now if you're talking about downloading the AEC box now that it's out of print, hell yeah I'm ambiguous, relevant to the scenario (which of course includes time, place, motivation, parallel opportunities, etc.). I'd chastise myself if I wasn't, because the net effect of that would be joining The I've Got It, You Don't, So If You Don't Have What It Takes To Get In NOW, Then Fuck You, Chump Club which you & I both know is ultimately far more destructive to the things we hold dear in life than is some virtual Hey Dude, Let Me Get A Copy Of That From You, Whaddya Say? Also keep in mind that "ambiguity" covers the entire spectrum of scenarios, by no means all of them benevolent, either immediately or long-term. Considering one without considering them all equally is a fool's game, both practically and intellectually.

Sounds good in theory, is good in a lot of ways, but again i gotta ask - how wrong is this guy: http://the78rpmblog.blogspot.com/

And I'm saying that absolutes, unmovable, unyielding absolutes, exist as nothing other than the endpoints between which reality is positioned. If you discover a different reality, congratulations. I just hope that it actually is a reality...

is hilarious! A masterpiece of irony! Thanks. I think I better just agree that we disagree and move on. I clearly don't see this the same way as the majority of people here or elsewhere. I know the industry is changing. I will continue to enjoy CDs and vinyl though, thanks very much. Hey man, I know you're a good guy, and honest, there's nothing personal in any of this. I do respect your personal choices even if I don't quite understand the broader conclusions that seem to project from them on to some of the rest of us. But hell, I've loaned money to people I've had bigger issues with than this! So yeah, it's all good.

If I understand the argument, you're saying that a physical object (a CD) has to be involved for an improper transfer (theft) of the music to occur? And if I do understand this correctly, how does the argument address the inevitability (we're told) of the demise of the CD, when there is no physical object anymore? (Or, in the case of music that is today sold only in digital format? ... The Dave Douglas Live at the Jazz Standard comes to mind.) It's a complicated problem, so I'm not getting evangelical on the issue or anything. Just probing. Probe away, because right now, I don't think that anybody really knows anything. I will say, though, that on my own "scale" that blogging of long OOP material is far less a crime than selling CDRs of copywritten material. And that there's plenty - infinite amounts, probably - of "in between" in between. Case in point: http://the78rpmblog.blogspot.com/ Does anybody really have a beef with this type shit? I doubt it. Now, the question becomes this - when does "our" shit become this shit? And that's an evolution in progress (is there any other type of evolution, btw?), and frankly, I don't know. Time alone will be the decider on that one. But i will say this -when I come across blogged LP rips of Shirley Scott Cadet sides that are, like, 35 years old (and probably almost that much OOP), things I've never once seen "real" copies of, albums that have never been reissued, and probably never will be reissued, I feel like I have been presented with a shared gift, whereas if I come across a blogged version of that Dave Douglas thing you mention (& I haven't, I don't go looking for that type thing), I feel like I did when some crackhead offered me a half pack of cigarettes that they had just lifted out of somebody's coat pocket. I refuse to live in a world where there is no distinction whatsoever made between these two scenarios.

There are a couple of flaws with that argument: mp3s can be copied ad infinitum, while each generation of cassette copies get worse. Also, with ever-increasing bandwidth, high-bit rate MP3s are already common, and increasingly indistinguishable from original WAV files. Wellsir, right there you have the crux of the Industry's Pandora's Box, the core of why things ain't never gonna be like they used to be. And who was it who opened Pandora's Box? Pandora her own self.

I don't see that as any different than some kid downloading a copy of the AEC box illegally. Except that somebody else happened to profit. In either case, the rightful people received no compensation. Your tunnel vision is your prerogative, so as long as you're at it, why don't you ask proponents of euthanasia (or even better, pro-choice advocates) if they feel "ok" with a drive-by or a mass murder or if they think it's "wrong"? Put that lack of nuanced thinking on full display for us, ok? And to be perfectly honest, if that kid had a choice between downloading a free copy of the box off of some blog, or paying beaucoup bodacious bucks for it from some "speculator" on eBay, I'd encourage him/her to download it from the blog - if all they wanted was to hear the music and not own an "object". But not before encouraging him/her to contacting Chuck first to see what the man himself could do. Excuse me now. I just heard a song on the radio that i like, and it's the fourth time today I've heard it. 20th time over the last two weeks. I now have a moral obligation to buy it. Hearing a song on the radio is apples and oranges, or else I don't get the comparison. I don't get that it's ok to download something that you aren't entitled to, but it's wrong to make copies of it physically and sell it. Either way it's wrong, isn't it? And I'm not sure I understand the need to insult someone who doesn't see things the same way as you do. Is nuanced thinking a way to justify doing something wrong? You keep trying to correlate the music thing with murder and other horrible crime (here and in our previous discussion about this), but it's simply not the same thing. What's wrong is wrong in either case, but there's certainly degrees of wrongness in the examples you're bringing up and downloading music. Stealing a pack of gum from 7/11 is wrong too, but I would never compare it to something like murder. Why are you doing that with the music thing? You commented in the other thread that it's your birthright to only respect laws that respect you (and presumably not the other ones?). I think that's our disconnect on this one. We have many disconnects on this one, not the least of which is your distinguishing between "degrees" of "wrong" on damn near everything but "illegal" downloading (and btw - I'm not sure that blog "sharing" is clearly "illegal" just yet. The Fair Use clause is hardly airtight. Yet...). I know we all have our quirks and inconsistencies (I know I sure do), but when it comes out that you really don't have concerns about "fair" artist compensation for things like BMG/etc sales, I'm left asking myself what is the overriding principle here? Industry lapdog? Blind adherence to any and all laws, regardless of how incongruous/irrelevant they may be? I'm left looking for the "music lover" angle in all this and just not seeing it, unless it's that the industry is irretrievably changing and you're going to do your part to keep it from happening. I respect your gumption, really i do, but...let me know how that works out for both you and the industry, ok? You can fight the new battles yet to be fought, or you can fight the old ones already lost. And btw - this is hilarious! A masterpiece of irony!

Sadly, I think that makes the distinction between CD-Rs and downloads simply a piece of cheap plastic: IIRC, FLAC files (loss-less encoding) can be re-encoded to WAV files, and burned. Original source material (CD) --> FLAC --> posted to Rapidshare (for instance) --> downloaded --> converted to WAV --> CD-R The resulting CD-R is BIT-FOR-BIT identical to the original source on CD. (please correct me if I'm wrong) That "distinction" is nevertheless crucial, because it's the converted file that is being sold as an object, and (for the time being anyway) can be sold, simply because of the current collective perception of what an "object" is, and make no mistake, it is the "object" that is being sold. Ain't nobody gonna pay that much just for files to download. At least not in the forseeable future. That distinction also raises the issue of not all downloads being equal. FLAC files are lossless, mp3 files compromise the sound. So it could be argued that mp3 ultimately = cassette copying between/amongst friends (or more accurately "friends"), whereas FLAC = Morris Levy counterfeiting everybody else's LPs.

"analog" refers to the final state, not the source material. And yes, those CD-R copies are very different than their downloaded counterparts. Well, strictly speaking, analog was the initial state of these recordings, not the final state. The source material was originally recorded and released in an analog format. CD-Rs (and the CD box set) are just a bunch of 1's and 0's -- digital, by definition. Here's an interesting thought experiment: what if "Scott" downloaded the AEC source material from a blog, converted it from MP3 to WAV, and burned a bunch of CD-Rs? I'm sure the liner notes are also available in a easy to download (digital) format somewhere as well. Now he resells this to our new friend in Toronto... and he's the only crook? By "analog", I refer to the media "container". Our protagonist here can, and will, return his CD-Rs. How could he "return" a download? Oh, sure, he could return his hard drive, or his iPod, but what if those storage media contained both legitimately obtained items and others? How could he "return" just the illegitimate ones? Not all "objects" are objects. Hey - I'm not here to advocate opening the gates and just letting everybody have whatever they want. Far from it. But there's some POVs expressed here that strike me as being entirely wishful thinking-based, and I'm going to play devil's advocate there simply because the reality is not black & white.

"analog" refers to the final state, not the source material. And yes, those CD-R copies are very different than their downloaded counterparts.

I don't see that as any different than some kid downloading a copy of the AEC box illegally. Except that somebody else happened to profit. In either case, the rightful people received no compensation. Your tunnel vision is your prerogative, so as long as you're at it, why don't you ask proponents of euthanasia (or even better, pro-choice advocates) if they feel "ok" with a drive-by or a mass murder or if they think it's "wrong"? Put that lack of nuanced thinking on full display for us, ok? And to be perfectly honest, if that kid had a choice between downloading a free copy of the box off of some blog, or paying beaucoup bodacious bucks for it from some "speculator" on eBay, I'd encourage him/her to download it from the blog - if all they wanted was to hear the music and not own an "object". But not before encouraging him/her to contacting Chuck first to see what the man himself could do. Excuse me now. I just heard a song on the radio that i like, and it's the fourth time today I've heard it. 20th time over the last two weeks. I now have a moral obligation to buy it.

Yeah, that's bullshit. This guy is reproducing and selling analog material in an analog domain. He's creating hard, not virtual, copies, and he's selling what is not his to sell. Cut and dried theft, by well-established rules and precedents. Is that so hard to figure out? Duh.

I think it's more a matter of wanting to take care of than it is wanting to be taken care of. Seriously. Look at all the work - serious work -that goes into being a "stay at home mom". And look at how many women do that work plus work outside the home. And as long as this love-through-deeds is felt to be appreciated & respected, it's (mostly) all good. And when it's not...shit gets funky. In more ways than a few, they take care of us more than we do them. The wise man recognizes this and spends his life not letting the balance get too far out of wack. What might be seen as "taking care of them" is actually a matter of simply returning the favor. If it ain't, you (or they) don't have a partner, you (or they) have a...pet. It's a simple equation, really. The more you do for your loved one, the more they do for you. And again the other way. It builds upon itself. When that ain't working, no matter who breaks the cycle,disaster is inevitable.

I don't think that "Agreeing with everything she wants" is nearly as important as understanding why it is that she wants what she wants, what what she wants might really represent to her, and then expressing clear & unambigous understanding & respect for all that. Whe you do that, there are times when a "baby, I understand that this is important to you, & I'll be there with you if you want me to, but on this one, I'd really like to take a pass" works w/o any muss or fuss. But only sometimes (i.e. - when it's something that truly creeps you out, not just something that you find "dull"), and only when it's sincere. Using it just to cover for being a self-absorbed dick don't cut it too many times...

http://www.dustygroove.com/item.php?id=kfr...p;ref=index.php The Stards Seigh: There's some keywords there that are likely to send some y'all runnin', so let me assure you - yes, run. Run like hell from this one! But otherwise...DAMN are these grooves tight! Badass spirit indeed! Not really a "Reben Wilson Organ Record", but one helluva funky band record. If you think you might want it, trust me - you do.