Hardcore Vol 3 + 4

[devmonkey]

Anybody know anything about these.. looks like this dude is
bootlegging.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4824408764

-monkey

[JonYo]

Post by devmonkey
Anybody know anything about these.. looks like this dude is
bootlegging.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4824408764
-monkey

Full on bootleg, he's making money illegally off our favorite Spuds.
Grrr!

[Hugh Jorgan]

In article

Post by JonYo

Post by devmonkey
Anybody know anything about these.. looks like this dude is
bootlegging.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4824408764
-monkey

Full on bootleg, he's making money illegally off our favorite Spuds.
Grrr!

these are "supposedly" the discs that RYCOdisc never put out, more demo
stuff and odds. i have a copy of these, very low-low-fi stuff, some of
it's barely audible. there is some cool stuff, like RED SHARK which
became IT'S NOT RIGHT and many versions of ALL OF US. it probably could
have been edited into one somewhat decent disc. only for the hardcore
DEVO fans.

i wouldn't call it stealing money from DEVO if it's something they
wouldn't otherwise release. if DEVO chose to release this material, then
by all means i agree. since they haven't, it would otherwise be lost.

[JonYo]

In article

Post by Hugh Jorgan
In article

Post by JonYo

Post by devmonkey
Anybody know anything about these.. looks like this dude is
bootlegging.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4824408764
-monkey

Full on bootleg, he's making money illegally off our favorite Spuds.
Grrr!

these are "supposedly" the discs that RYCOdisc never put out, more demo
stuff and odds. i have a copy of these, very low-low-fi stuff, some of
it's barely audible. there is some cool stuff, like RED SHARK which
became IT'S NOT RIGHT and many versions of ALL OF US. it probably could
have been edited into one somewhat decent disc. only for the hardcore
DEVO fans.
i wouldn't call it stealing money from DEVO if it's something they
wouldn't otherwise release. if DEVO chose to release this material, then
by all means i agree. since they haven't, it would otherwise be lost.

It's the making money thing that bugs me. Not so much that the Spuds
would be getting it, since as you say, they're not putting it out, but
that this buy is just duping discs in his bedroom and making money. You
can get all the stuff on those discs for >free< by zooming over to
boojiboysbasement.com...

[Boom]

Post by Hugh Jorgan
In article

Post by Hugh Jorgan
In article

Post by JonYo

Post by devmonkey
Anybody know anything about these.. looks like this dude is
bootlegging.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4824408764
-monkey

Full on bootleg, he's making money illegally off our favorite Spuds.
Grrr!

these are "supposedly" the discs that RYCOdisc never put out, more demo
stuff and odds. i have a copy of these, very low-low-fi stuff, some of
it's barely audible. there is some cool stuff, like RED SHARK which
became IT'S NOT RIGHT and many versions of ALL OF US. it probably could
have been edited into one somewhat decent disc. only for the hardcore
DEVO fans.
i wouldn't call it stealing money from DEVO if it's something they
wouldn't otherwise release. if DEVO chose to release this material, then
by all means i agree. since they haven't, it would otherwise be lost.

It's the making money thing that bugs me. Not so much that the Spuds
would be getting it, since as you say, they're not putting it out, but
that this buy is just duping discs in his bedroom and making money. You
can get all the stuff on those discs for >free< by zooming over to
boojiboysbasement.com...

Or on Soulseek. That's where I got it all. But it's strictly for the
hardcore fan. Quite honestly, a lot of it is total crap, like take
the worst parts of the first two Hardcore albums and that's what's
left. Except for Red Shark. I kind of like that song.

[Ronald Cole]

Post by JonYo
It's the making money thing that bugs me. Not so much that the Spuds
would be getting it, since as you say, they're not putting it out, but
that this buy is just duping discs in his bedroom and making money. You
can get all the stuff on those discs for >free< by zooming over to
boojiboysbasement.com...

I just don't know. The reason Big Entertainment gives for not
releasing this stuff is that they couldn't make money off it... yet
pirates manage to. I'm all for *any* activity that actively pursues
the goal of eliminating the phrase "out of print" from the English
language. Hell, if I were President, I'd bitch-slap Congress until
they made it a requirement that a copyright holder has to make their
copyrighted material available, always, or lose their copyright!

[Boom]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:17:21 -0800, Ronald Cole

Post by Ronald Cole

Post by JonYo
It's the making money thing that bugs me. Not so much that the Spuds
would be getting it, since as you say, they're not putting it out, but
that this buy is just duping discs in his bedroom and making money. You
can get all the stuff on those discs for >free< by zooming over to
boojiboysbasement.com...

I just don't know. The reason Big Entertainment gives for not
releasing this stuff is that they couldn't make money off it... yet
pirates manage to. I'm all for *any* activity that actively pursues
the goal of eliminating the phrase "out of print" from the English
language. Hell, if I were President, I'd bitch-slap Congress until
they made it a requirement that a copyright holder has to make their
copyrighted material available, always, or lose their copyright!

Big Entertainment (don't forget the TM) can't make any money off of
it. A few hundred bucks is nothing to a big company, but it's a lot
to a pirate.

Also, a copyright holder doesn't always own the rights to their own
material. They may own the rights to the song, but they don't
necessarily own their masters. So while it sounds good on paper to
say a copyright holder shoudl always make their material available to
the public, it's not always in their hands.

[Ronald Cole]

Post by Boom
Big Entertainment (don't forget the TM) can't make any money off of
it. A few hundred bucks is nothing to a big company, but it's a lot
to a pirate.

Hey, $100 is $100. Big Entertainment(tm) can use those bills to wipe
their, erm, noses and save on tissue expenses.

Post by Boom
Also, a copyright holder doesn't always own the rights to their own
material. They may own the rights to the song, but they don't
necessarily own their masters. So while it sounds good on paper to
say a copyright holder shoudl always make their material available to
the public, it's not always in their hands.

Well, someone owns the rights... and they should be forced to make the
copyrighted material they own available, or lose their right to the
public domain. Today, we have situations where NOBODY knows who owns
the copyright on particular titles... and with ridiculously long
copyright terms, it's a situation that is even worse than being "out
of print", IMO.

[Boom]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 01:33:57 -0800, Ronald Cole

Post by Ronald Cole

Post by Boom
Also, a copyright holder doesn't always own the rights to their own
material. They may own the rights to the song, but they don't
necessarily own their masters. So while it sounds good on paper to
say a copyright holder shoudl always make their material available to
the public, it's not always in their hands.

Well, someone owns the rights... and they should be forced to make the
copyrighted material they own available, or lose their right to the
public domain.

So you think we should force people to spend large amounts of money to
protect the ownership of songs they wrote? I say that if I own a
copyright, it's my song to do with what I wish, including keep it out
of print if I don't want to pay to press CD's.

Post by Ronald Cole
Today, we have situations where NOBODY knows who owns
the copyright on particular titles... and with ridiculously long
copyright terms, it's a situation that is even worse than being "out
of print", IMO.

I don't know what you're driving at. What's it to you as a listener
whether the owner of the copyright doesn't want to pay to keep songs
in print if there's no more money to be made?

[Ronald Cole]

Post by Boom
So you think we should force people to spend large amounts of money to
protect the ownership of songs they wrote? I say that if I own a
copyright, it's my song to do with what I wish, including keep it out
of print if I don't want to pay to press CD's.

Go reread your Constitution. A "copyright" is a limited period of
time whereby a "copyright" owner is the only one entitled to create
copies. It was to spur creativity; in other words, you had to keep
creating new stuff if you wanted to continue making a living being
the exclusive source of copies.

Post by Boom
I don't know what you're driving at. What's it to you as a listener
whether the owner of the copyright doesn't want to pay to keep songs
in print if there's no more money to be made?

You said it yourself... a "pirate" would love to make that $100 to
supply that "worthless" tidbit to someone willing to pay for it. And
if a copyright owner doesn't want to pay to keep their exclusive
copyright, then it would fall into the public doman where it would be
forever available to anyone for the cost to acquire, the cost of media
and the cost of the time to make the copy.

[Boom]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 22:12:22 -0800, Ronald Cole

Post by Ronald Cole

Post by Boom
So you think we should force people to spend large amounts of money to
protect the ownership of songs they wrote? I say that if I own a
copyright, it's my song to do with what I wish, including keep it out
of print if I don't want to pay to press CD's.

Go reread your Constitution. A "copyright" is a limited period of
time whereby a "copyright" owner is the only one entitled to create
copies. It was to spur creativity; in other words, you had to keep
creating new stuff if you wanted to continue making a living being
the exclusive source of copies.

Copyright length never had a thing to do with spurring creativity.
Copyright length had to do with protecting the rights of the author to
profit on his works. Quite frankly, I think it's an insult that the
government decides there's a time that the holder's heirs can no
longer profit from a holder's work. But I would never want to live in
a world where someone who has a hit song could lose his rights to
profit the song just because he doesn't want to spend the money on a
reissue that may or may not sell. That's extortion.

Post by Ronald Cole

Post by Boom
I don't know what you're driving at. What's it to you as a listener
whether the owner of the copyright doesn't want to pay to keep songs
in print if there's no more money to be made?

You said it yourself... a "pirate" would love to make that $100 to
supply that "worthless" tidbit to someone willing to pay for it. And
if a copyright owner doesn't want to pay to keep their exclusive
copyright, then it would fall into the public doman where it would be
forever available to anyone for the cost to acquire, the cost of media
and the cost of the time to make the copy.

What if the copyright holder didn't want that worthless tidbit
released to the public? Devo never released those songs on an
official CD. So technically they don't even exist. I think whoever
releases bootlegs and charges for them should be charged with a crime.
And extorting an artist to keep their songs in print or lose the
rights to them is an insult.

[Ronald Cole]

Post by Boom
Copyright length never had a thing to do with spurring creativity.
Copyright length had to do with protecting the rights of the author to
profit on his works. Quite frankly, I think it's an insult that the
government decides there's a time that the holder's heirs can no
longer profit from a holder's work. But I would never want to live in
a world where someone who has a hit song could lose his rights to
profit the song just because he doesn't want to spend the money on a
reissue that may or may not sell. That's extortion.

Complete and unmitigated bullshit. Go find and read Federalist 43.
At the very least, look up the term in a legal dictionary like
Bouvier's. If you were even serious about knowing what the fuck you
were talking about, you'd probably even want to look it up in
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Common Law. You'll find that it has
nothing to do with ownership(!), rather it has everything to do with
the incorporeal right to the sole printing and publishing of something
intellectual.

<http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s3.html>

[Boom]

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 17:21:16 -0700, Ronald Cole

Post by Ronald Cole

Post by Boom
Copyright length never had a thing to do with spurring creativity.
Copyright length had to do with protecting the rights of the author to
profit on his works. Quite frankly, I think it's an insult that the
government decides there's a time that the holder's heirs can no
longer profit from a holder's work. But I would never want to live in
a world where someone who has a hit song could lose his rights to
profit the song just because he doesn't want to spend the money on a
reissue that may or may not sell. That's extortion.

Complete and unmitigated bullshit. Go find and read Federalist 43.
At the very least, look up the term in a legal dictionary like
Bouvier's. If you were even serious about knowing what the fuck you
were talking about, you'd probably even want to look it up in
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Common Law. You'll find that it has
nothing to do with ownership(!), rather it has everything to do with
the incorporeal right to the sole printing and publishing of something
intellectual.
<http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s3.html>

Where does it say in that link that the copyright holder should lose
his right to profit if he doesn't keep his works in print constantly?
And if it's complete and unmitigated bullshit, then how come the law
says copyright holders still retain the rights to songs that aren't
currently in print? You can name off whatever documents you want, and
you will not find anything that says that people have to keep their
works in print to retain the rights. And when did I say anything
about ownership? Quite frankly, I fail to understand what point
you're trying to make. Too many fucks and shits, not enough adressing
the actual subject we were talking about.

[Stiiv]

Post by Boom
Too many fucks and shits

Civility, anyone? Please play nice, fellas. ;>

Stiiv
http://www.stiiv.com

[Ronald Cole]

Post by Boom
Where does it say in that link that the copyright holder should lose
his right to profit if he doesn't keep his works in print constantly?

It doesn't. You've completely lost focus of my point, which was that
I believe that "out of print" does not "promote the useful arts" and
the law should see to it that it just doesn't happen.

If you want to argue that your songs are property, then you should
have to pay property taxes on the value of your property. Have you
notified your county tax assessor? Care to have your songs subject to
eminent domain or being condemned and sold to someone who would
"develop" your property (i.e., generate tax revenue)? No? Then tell
me why your "intellectual" property is so different that it should
enjoy only some property rights and not be subject to the tax
obligations of owning property?

[Ookie Wonderslug]

Post by Boom
Where does it say in that link that the copyright holder should lose
his right to profit if he doesn't keep his works in print constantly?

The purpose of copyright was secure to the creators of writings and
such a means to profit off those works for a limited time. Then those
works were to go into the public domain for others to build off of. It
serves no purpose other than greed to give unlimited lifetime
copyrights to anyone.

When you steal those works out of the public domain and lock them up
in some mystical idea of "property" then innovation is stifled.

The currents laws are immoral and unworkable. By the time a work
enters the public domain there is no chance left for anything to be
created from it or such. I mean really, who is going to reinvent
"Camptown Ladies"? "Happy Birthday" is still copyright for goodness
sakes. If any song should be public domain by now that one should be.

No, copyright should be no more than 20 years. Period. Because your
"creation" once it's birthed no longer belongs to you. Just like a
child, your job is to nurture and guide it and exercise complete
control of it until it's old enough to stand on it's own. Then you
have to let it go. Keeping it home with you under your wing will only
kill it in the end. Just like a child.

Repeal the Bono Copyright act.

[Boom]

Post by Ookie Wonderslug

Post by Boom
Where does it say in that link that the copyright holder should lose
his right to profit if he doesn't keep his works in print constantly?

The purpose of copyright was secure to the creators of writings and
such a means to profit off those works for a limited time. Then those
works were to go into the public domain for others to build off of. It
serves no purpose other than greed to give unlimited lifetime
copyrights to anyone.
When you steal those works out of the public domain and lock them up
in some mystical idea of "property" then innovation is stifled.
The currents laws are immoral and unworkable. By the time a work
enters the public domain there is no chance left for anything to be
created from it or such. I mean really, who is going to reinvent
"Camptown Ladies"? "Happy Birthday" is still copyright for goodness
sakes. If any song should be public domain by now that one should be.
No, copyright should be no more than 20 years. Period. Because your
"creation" once it's birthed no longer belongs to you. Just like a
child, your job is to nurture and guide it and exercise complete
control of it until it's old enough to stand on it's own. Then you
have to let it go. Keeping it home with you under your wing will only
kill it in the end. Just like a child.
Repeal the Bono Copyright act.

You have two majorly faulty premises you're working from...first, you
have assigned living characteristics to music and feel so passionately
about it that you feel like you belong to it. You don't. You can
play it all you want to, but you're not a part of the music unless
you're on it.

Second, you seem to think about bands who have a lot of money and
don't need to work anymore. I work with oldies acts who might have
had one, maybe two hits, and still play out because they were big
enough to make some money back in the day, but that was back in the
day and they need to work, and they don't make a fortune. A lot of
those acts, if they don't get their song placed in a soundtrack on TV
or movies, they may not make any money at all from their one hit song.
Why should that person be denied the right to profit from his hard
work writing and recording a song? Because you feel it belongs to
you? Not a good enough reason for me.

[Ronald Cole]

Post by Boom
Why should that person be denied the right to profit from his hard
work writing and recording a song?

Because writing one hit song forty years ago and then resting on their
laurels can hardly be argued to be "promoting the Progress ... of the
useful Arts".

Post by Boom
Because you feel it belongs to you?

Culture belongs to everyone.

Post by Boom
Not a good enough reason for me.

Slacker. If you want society to pay you for the rest of your life for
producing art, then get off your ass and produce more than one piece!
We'll all be the better for it!!

[Boom]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 18:45:45 -0700, Ronald Cole

Post by Ronald Cole

Post by Boom
Why should that person be denied the right to profit from his hard
work writing and recording a song?

Because writing one hit song forty years ago and then resting on their
laurels can hardly be argued to be "promoting the Progress ... of the
useful Arts".

Not your call, is it?

Post by Ronald Cole

Post by Boom
Because you feel it belongs to you?

Culture belongs to everyone.

Then go to Paris and help yourself to the Mona Lisa. Hang it in your
kitchen.

Post by Ronald Cole

Post by Boom
Not a good enough reason for me.

Slacker. If you want society to pay you for the rest of your life for
producing art, then get off your ass and produce more than one piece!
We'll all be the better for it!!

Has it ever occurred to you that many of these one-hit wonders have
put out entire albums, and in some cases, a lot of albums, but nothing
else has caught on?

Listen, if you want to keep beating this topic, feel free, but you're
not going to convince me you're right.

[Ronald Cole]

Post by Boom
Not your call, is it?

I think it is. I'm a reasonable person.

Post by Boom
Then go to Paris and help yourself to the Mona Lisa. Hang it in your
kitchen.

I'm not a DaVinci fanboi, so I don't want to own the original. I'd be
happy with a copy.

Post by Boom
Has it ever occurred to you that many of these one-hit wonders have
put out entire albums, and in some cases, a lot of albums, but nothing
else has caught on?

And how many of those albums are out of print?

Post by Boom
Listen, if you want to keep beating this topic, feel free, but you're
not going to convince me you're right.

Ah, a closed mind. Sorry I wasted your time with clearly articulated
and well reasoned and cited argument...

[Ronald Cole]

Post by Ookie Wonderslug
The purpose of copyright was secure to the creators of writings and
such a means to profit off those works for a limited time.

Sorry, go have another look at the resources I posted earlier.
Copyright has nothing to do with securing a means to profit and
everything to do with the sole right to make copies and promoting the
progress of the useful arts.

Post by Ookie Wonderslug
Then those works were to go into the public domain for others to
build off of. It serves no purpose other than greed to give
unlimited lifetime copyrights to anyone. When you steal those works
out of the public domain and lock them up in some mystical idea of
"property" then innovation is stifled.
The currents laws are immoral and unworkable. By the time a work
enters the public domain there is no chance left for anything to be
created from it or such. I mean really, who is going to reinvent
"Camptown Ladies"? "Happy Birthday" is still copyright for goodness
sakes. If any song should be public domain by now that one should be.
No, copyright should be no more than 20 years. Period. Because your
"creation" once it's birthed no longer belongs to you. Just like a
child, your job is to nurture and guide it and exercise complete
control of it until it's old enough to stand on it's own. Then you
have to let it go. Keeping it home with you under your wing will only
kill it in the end. Just like a child.
Repeal the Bono Copyright act.

As far as I'm concerned, if the Big Entertainment wants to call it
"property", then the states should be looking mighty hard at assessing
the value of BE's "property" holdings and generating a mighty hefty
tax bill to fund all the law enforcement that their DMCA requires!

[Boom]

Post by devmonkey
Anybody know anything about these.. looks like this dude is
bootlegging.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4824408764

You think? ;)