RDK

Yeah, but only because in a lot of countries the guy would have been stoned to death for wearing a dress...

I'm not at all surprised that "Estafan Night" was such a bomb. It takes a certain singing style, energy, and attitude (and dare I say ethnicity?) to pull off such material with any credibility. Not to mention dance moves. I'm not sure what the producers were thinking letting the kids do salsa music. Diana came closest to getting the energy right, but she's young and vibrant and the song she performed was upbeat. I love La Toya and Fantasia, but even they were subpar this week.

While I don't disagree about the teenieboppers ballot-stuffing, I have to admit that in each of the past two seasons I believe that the best singers did indeed win. So something about the process sure works.

I think a lot of people (myself included to a degree) tend to look at the PD/intellectual rights issue on a macro verses micro basis. For the most part, I think most feel that 50 years, 75 years, or "death of the author + X" years is a perfectly adequate amount of time for a creator to retain copyrights and profit from his own work. Most seem to agree that Shakespeare's oeuvre, to use the most overused example, should be "fair game" after so many centuries as it becomes part of our collective culture. Studies have also shown that something like 99% of all books/movies/music/etc. retain little or no commercial value after 75 years (such a cultural icon as Mickey Mouse being one notable exception). It's interesting to look back on, say, the Top 100 book lists of the 20s and 30s (or prior) - one is unlikely to recognize most of the titles, and those are the "hits" of the day. So for the most part, few people (including some artists and their heirs) care if such stuff falls into PD. (But then there are the exceptions, such as Jim's hypothetical example of Blue Mitchell's hit single in the year 2087. It sounds grossly unfair that Acme Co. might rake in the dough while Blue's great great great grandkids see nothing.) But it's quite another thing if we get past the faceless corporate entities, obscure works, and forgotten authors. When a specific name is attached to the work, when we know and/or remember the author in question - when we realize that an aging jazz artist whose work we treasure is elderly and perhaps sick and who was most likely cheated out of the bulk of any profits years ago and could now use the money - well then, that's another story. As it is when a business deal is personalized, such as that made by Nessa Records with the AEC back in '67. Then it's much easier to look at the specific incident and label it unfair if not outright illegal - heck, now we *know* the actual dudes who are getting ripped off. *That's* why I'm so torn on the issue. I understand and even support the need for PD, but also understand the necessity for authors to profit from their work and control it for a certain period of time. The issue has actually become more complicated recently with the rise of corporate/media conglomerations, who often own the rights at the expense of the artists. Many here have taken Verve, for example, to task for not releasing so much of their back catalog. But (as Chuck will attest) there's a lot of material there that wouldn't be able to sell enough copies to make it profitable for Uni to release them (at least on CD; the future on-line is another discussion entirely). If the owners of the material refuse (or are financially unable) to release it, should it become fair game for anyone; should it, effectively, become PD? (And is that any better or worse than exchanging CDRs of oop session?) Ah, my head hurts. I'm going home...

Auggie, thanks for posting that - I must have missed it the first time. LMAO.

mine sucks: Skinny Legs Smith

Geez, don't tell me they're "mastering" this using "track-at-once." Hell, I can do that at *home.*

Dan's not the only dunce here (and how! ). For whatever reason, I thought RC was from NYC, not Europe. I guess I'm just too damn literal.

This sounds like one I'll have to pick up as well. Only saw a few eps at the time, but it was a quality show. Judd's a pretty cool guy. Just want to note thing, though. There seems a lot of acrimony against NBC (I think it was) for canceling the show. That's understandable, to a degree, but please remember that no network *wants* to cancel any TV series. They want them all to become huge hits that run for years. The reason the show was cancelled was because it didn't get good ratings - which means that not enough people watched it. Fair or unfair, that's how it goes. If you want to blame anyone for the show's cancellation, look in the mirror. And then curse your fellow man. B)

I'll have to get back to you on that one...

Now I'm confused. Are you and JSngry talking about the same Herman? Or are you making a funny that's flying high over my head?

Here's one possible, intriguing solution (and it also answers several questions regarding current copyright laws)... http://www.eldred.cc/ea_faq.html

Chuck, I don't - and never did - disagree that the situation you describe sucks. The P.D./rights scenario you described earlier in the thread also has much validity to it and similiar things have been proposed before. You (as others) asked why intellectual property has limits while real property doesn't. I won't argue whether I think that's right or wrong, but the reason the laws are currently the way they are fairly well summed up here. I doubt you'll agree - and I'm not sure I do either; as I've said, the fence post is poking me in the ass - but in the interest of edification... http://reason.com/sullum/022202.shtml Overextended Copyrights out of control. By Jacob Sullum Irving Berlin wrote the original version of "God Bless America" in 1918, when Woodrow Wilson was president and transatlantic airlines were still a dream. The song was published 20 years later. Under current law, which gives works produced before 1978 a copyright term of 95 years, "God Bless America" will not enter the public domain until 2033. Now imagine another composer who, like Berlin, writes his first big hit at 23 and dies at 101. If his breakthrough single came out today, no one could legally perform, record, publish, broadcast, or distribute it without paying for the privilege until 2150, 70 years after his death. That's assuming Congress does not once again extend copyright terms, something it has done 11 times in the last four decades. If 148 years of exclusivity seems reasonable, why not 200 or 300? Officially, Congress is trying "to promote the Progress of...useful arts," as the Constitution puts it, "by securing for limited Times to Authors" an "exclusive Right" to their works. But it's hard to see how extending the copyright on "God Bless America," as Congress did in 1998, serves that purpose. Even if he were still alive, Berlin couldn't exactly write the song again. The disconnect between the intent of the Copyright Clause and its implementation by Congress is at the center of a case the Supreme Court recently agreed to hear. "By repeatedly extending the terms of existing copyrights," argue several publishers of public domain material, Congress can "achieve a perpetual copyright 'on the installment plan.' " If intellectual "property" were morally indistinguishable from tangible property--as copyright holders suggest when they equate infringement with theft--there would be nothing wrong with a perpetual copyright. We take it for granted that ownership of a house or a diamond ring does not simply expire after a set number of years and that such assets can be passed on to descendants indefinitely. A song, a movie, or a book is not quite the same, as the very existence of the Copyright Clause suggests. The Framers did not give Congress the power to grant people rights to their homes, farms, or personal possessions because such rights already existed. Indeed, protecting those rights was one of the main reasons for establishing a government in the first place. Copyrights, by contrast, were understood to be a legal invention, and the justification for them was utilitarian: to promote progress and enrich the culture by giving authors an additional incentive to create. But the Framers recognized that copyrights could also impede progress and impoverish the culture by preventing people from building on the work of others. That is one reason copyright terms--originally set at 14 years, renewable for another 14--had to be limited. Even with limits, copyrights were criticized by such luminaries as Thomas Jefferson, who recognized them as government-granted monopolies that would invite corruption. James Madison agreed that monopolies are "justly classed among the greatest nuisances in Government" but suggested they could be justified "as encouragements to literary works and ingenious discoveries." Today copyright law is unmoored from the goal Madison had in mind, while the corruption Jefferson feared is evident every time Congress votes to line the pockets of big media companies by extending their monopolies. The hypocrisy of the entertainment giants makes this spectacle even harder to stomach: Disney, which has made a fortune by recycling other people's stories (Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, The Hunchback of Notre Dame), can't bear the thought of letting early Mickey Mouse cartoons slip into the public domain. In the case the Supreme Court has agreed to consider, the plaintiffs argue that using copyright law to to reward influential corporations is not just unappetizing but unconstitutional. Although their argument was rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, at least one judge found it persuasive. The Copyright Clause "is not an open grant of power to secure exclusive rights," Judge David Sentelle wrote in his dissent. "It is a grant of power to promote progress....Extending existing copyrights is not promoting useful arts, nor is it securing exclusivity for a limited time." This reading of the Copyright Clause would not address all the problems associated with intellectual property. But it would restore some balance to a debate that has been dominated for too long by the uncompromising, moralistic rhetoric of monopolists. © Copyright 2002 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Why, why, WHY are we wasting our time here and not on the Babes thread????

Do you mean Phil or Bushmiller?

Oh yeah, Sangry, take this! (don't want to post the actual pics here, but be warned they're kinda, uh, dirty) http://tijuanabibles.org/cgi-bin/hazel.cgi...tail&item=TB055

Y'know, Mark, having just clicked directly onto page seven, without having read the immediately preceeding posts, I can only guess what your response is referring to! That's a *great* punchline to a dirty joke somewhere...

Wow! Aunt Fritzi's kinda hot!

Wow, at 80:01 this may be the longest single BFT disc yet! Just received it last night and am spinning it now for the first time. I'm not recognizing anything yet, but I like what I'm hearing.

Main Entry: sar·casm Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m Function: noun Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut 1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain <tired of continual sarcasms> 2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm <this is no time to indulge in sarcasm>

Now that BFT #10 is officially underway, all you guys and gals, saints and sinners who would like to participate in BFT #11 please drop me a PM with all your necessary info. It will be a double disc set this time (well, one plus a bonus disc), so if anyone *doesn't* want disc 2 note that as well - but otherwise you'll get both. I should have no problem handling any copying and distrubution on this side o' the world, but if anyone across the pond would care to help out please let me know. (Or if nothing else, just offer some advice on cheapest/fastest/safest international shipping.) PMs would be best since they'll all be in one place, but if that doesn't work you can e-mail directly at ray.kolasa@unistudios.com Thanks, and enjoy!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...item=4146756343

Elvis!

Hey Dan! Yep, it's already on my agenda for today. Just finished burning the "master" of my first disc last night... I was waiting to receive BFT 10 and it just arrived yesterday.

Hey Eric, I know this has just been rehashed and I don't mean to single you out, but you just raised part of the issue that's most intriguing to me. What is the proper (no pun intended) amount of time until such material enters the public domain? I can actually understand and support the argument that such artistic properties *never* become P.D. (though I don't think that's good policy overall), but I always find it amusing how the number keeps changing each time the issue is raised. For people (fans or companies) who want to release obscure material with minimal commercial prospects, the 50 (or 75) year term is way too long; for Disney and such companies with valuable properties (Mickey, Tarzan, etc.) it's way too short. Why would, for example, 100 years be better than 50/75? If you're looking at only the artist or artist heirs argument, you would never get a number that was reasonable - hence the "in perpetuity" argument. The number of years - 50, 75, or whatever - has always seemed a compromise and it's usually "good enough" until that sliding legal timeline finally catches up to the era of music that we personally love and suddenly it's "not long enough."