Attention: Chuck Nessa

[Neal Pomea]

If the individual intellectual property rights infringed by the 78 blog are the right to keep the works out of print and assign them to oblivion, then I think the 78s blog's service to the public domain is more important than that individual right. What would be a fair compulsory license fee for distributing these works that have no monetary value? Certainly something very low and not burdensome for the blogger.

I also feel this way about eminent domain when the government takes privately owned land at a fair price in order to build public roads. The scenarios are fairly analogous. That of course does not apply to the AEC and Saturn situation.

[JSngry]

I refuse to live in a world where there is no distinction whatsoever made between these two scenarios.

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.

[marcello]

Public domian recordings are not a issue, but if someone wants to share OOP recordings with the world, they can start a internet radio show and archive the playlists for everyone to listen to.

Otherwise, if you sell someone's music and or recordings, you gotta pay the piper, baby.

No matter how much a beautiful "gift" it is.

This situation with Chuck is outright thievery, no matter how Scotty Boy paints it. He's a scumbag.

Re: downloading OOP rcordings...

It shoudn't be a matter of there isn't a system in place to fairly distribute these recordings and pay the heirs or the artist or the label or the publishing company, etc. Be upfront, be a business man contact these rightful owners and offer them some money or lease the rights, or wait until there is a system in place to pay instead of stealing and give to the poor.

Edited August 26, 2008 by marcello

[JSngry]

Public domian recordings are not a issue, but if someone wants to share OOP recordings with the world, they can start a internet radio show and archive the playlists for everyone to listen to.

Otherwise, if you sell someone's music and or recordings, you gotta pay the piper, baby.

No matter how much a beautiful "gift" it is.

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...

[marcello]

No, not selling. See my edited post above.

What can I say, I'n not a Communist.

[JSngry]

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

[JSngry]

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.

[RDK]

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

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I want nothing to do with a club that would have me as a member, no matter how much fun it sounds.

[clifford_thornton]

Malachi Favors was in a dream last night and he told me he wasn't paid to begin with on Certain Blacks. I shit you not.

Not that it makes the situation any "better" but we are assuming that artists were paid from the get-go, when often they were not. How much will a free download of Marc Levin's Savoy LP worsen the fact that he was paid maybe $50 to make it in the first place? (I'm talking devil's advocate here.)

[Neal Pomea]

No, not selling. See my edited post above.

What can I say, I'n not a Communist.

I heard the notion of a compulsory license for these orphaned or devalued works from Chuck Nessa!

[Daniel A]

I refuse to live in a world where there is no distinction whatsoever made between these two scenarios.

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?

Why do we even have intellectual rights? I would like to think that it is because our society thinks artistic work should be considered equal to other crafts. But of course the entertainment business has had efficient lobbyists as well. It's not unnamed studio musicians who are making governments prolong copyrights... But just because it has become ever so easy to get hold of so much (in blogland) these days, it may look and feel more harmless; however, compare an OOP album posted on a blog with making, say, five hundred - or even a thousand - cassette copies and sending them all around the world; how does that feel? Along with millions of others around the world I'm seduced into clicking on links to hear albums I've searched for for years, don't assume anything else, but it is really changing our attitude towards copyrights.

I don't think "marginal" music will die without unauthorized distribution, but unquestionably it will be heard by less people. Unfortunately the entertainment business was clueless of what was going on too long, and it will be very hard winning back the customers. The CD will soon be history, and then every blog-download of Shirley Scott will lessen the likeliness of a legal download release.

As for "they will never release it", we've all been repeatedly amazed of what has been reissued in Japan. They've got many jazz fans per square mile, which makes distribution of even many obscure releases profitable. Soon, when all is digital, there will be very limited distribution costs. That opens up lots of possibilities, but I'm afraid the attitude change I mentioned above could be causing even more problems when we're all-digital, too.

Edited August 26, 2008 by Daniel A

[Jazzmoose]

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?

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...

[Chuck Nessa]

Chuck has no more copies and from what I understand no intention of producing more

I am working on new remastered individual cds of the material in the box. I box edition was "limited", not the music.

[porcy62]

Chuck has no more copies and from what I understand no intention of producing more

I am working on new remastered individual cds of the material in the box. I box edition was "limited", not the music.

Great news!

As I said, you're a gentleman.

[JSngry]

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?

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.

[Chuck Nessa]

A huge difference is "favors" in the past were one to one. Now it is hundreds at a time and the sound quality is enough to give pause to a customer with money in the pocket. Want lists get whittled down and a burn at home is a real factor when faced with choice.

[RDK]

Chuck has no more copies and from what I understand no intention of producing more

I am working on new remastered individual cds of the material in the box. I box edition was "limited", not the music.

Good to hear!

[Chuck Nessa]

Chuck has no more copies and from what I understand no intention of producing more

I am working on new remastered individual cds of the material in the box. I box edition was "limited", not the music.

Good to hear!

Why would you imply the music would not be available in the future? I don't understand where your "understanding" came from.

[AllenLowe]

c'mon Chuck, we know you wanna keep all the good stuff for yourself -

[JSngry]

A huge difference is "favors" in the past were one to one. Now it is hundreds at a time and the sound quality is enough to give pause to a customer with money in the pocket. Want lists get whittled down and a burn at home is a real factor when faced with choice.

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.

[Chuck Nessa]

No, we are a work in decline.

[RDK]

Chuck has no more copies and from what I understand no intention of producing more

I am working on new remastered individual cds of the material in the box. I box edition was "limited", not the music.

Good to hear!

Why would you imply the music would not be available in the future? I don't understand where your "understanding" came from.

Just that you've said the box is sold out (oop) and being limited, I assumed the box would not be repressed. Hadn't heard that you were planning individual releases. Nothing sinister intended; my misunderstanding obviously.

[Neal Pomea]

No, we are a work in decline.

Must be. The public domain was equated here with communism. That's decline.

[Chuck Nessa]

Just that you've said the box is sold out (oop) and being limited, I assumed the box would not be repressed. Hadn't heard that you were planning individual releases. Nothing sinister intended; my misunderstanding obviously.

They don't make 1959 Impalas anymore either.

[JSngry]

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...

Edited August 27, 2008 by JSngry