Wow! It's been a long time since I've been over to CC Mixter!
They've been as busy as ever over there, creating a bunch of great new remixes using my Hepepe and Me acapella track.
MC Jackinthebox, one of my favorites, created a CC Chickster track using samples from many of the CC Mixter female vocal staples.
Then I find out that Hepepe created a new song using the acapella track that I originally added to his song (Hepepe and me), Byrd of Cool. He created a completely different track and called it:
Lisa and Me.
How cool is that?!
I've been fishing around in CC Mixter because I'm in the process of editing together a ton of Second Life videos, and I needed music for them.
As usual, ten minutes over at CC Mixter and I'm all set for soundtracks!
Oh yeah, this Dr. GoldKlang remix rocks too... (And it mixes me with death metal vocals, which I totally dig :-)
I've been to the Castro on Halloween several times, and even on years that I don't decide to go, it's important to me that I know it's there, happening. Just over there, being cultural, historical, and wonderful. And I always get to hear interesting and exciting anecdotes from my friends that make it.
Now we're told the party's over because, it would appear, of some gang incident that happened last year that didn't have anything to do with the festivities.
Merchants are being asked to close early. I hope they don't. They make a lot of money on Halloween. Why should they have to suffer too?
here's the article in the chronicle about it.
How can we save it guys? I dunno. Seems like we should go straight to Gavin Newsome about it. This is a good issue to see where he's at on over-reaching blanket bans on public congregation...
It's like telling the German's "hey, no Oktoberfest this year."
Here's the best quote of the article:
"People are still going to go to the Castro," said Ted Strawser, founder of the San Francisco Party Party, a group that opposes the move. "Without services, they're just going to pee in the street, and without entertainment, mischief will occur."
Updated to provide easy links to The San Francisco Party Party's website on this issue and its party platform statement.
Here's the full text of the article:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/06/01/state/n211009D90.DTL
City officials shut down annual Castro Halloween bash
Friday, June 1, 2007
A city firefighter assists a shooting victim, who was amo... A shooting victim clutches his leg in the Castro district... Erika Gruendyke (left) and Lenora Hett get a free, hands-... Gluteus maximus: Many Castro Halloween revelers wore cost...
(06-01) 21:10 PDT San Francisco (AP) --
Halloween revelers in San Francisco will have to find a new place to haunt this year after city officials decided to shut down the Castro district's yearly street party.
The section of Market and Castro Streets usually blocked off for the costumed extravaganza will remain open to traffic. There will be no portable toilets provided and no stages erected for entertainment, officials said.
Merchants are being asked to close early, said Supervisor Bevan Dufty, who represents the Castro, and some have already agreed to do so.
Moving the famous street party — a decades-long tradition in the gay enclave — has been an annual discussion since violence has increasingly defined the event. Last year a gunman shot nine people, and in 2002 four people were stabbed.
San Francisco officials tried to start an alternative party at the Civic Center from 1996-2001. But party-seekers went to the Castro anyway, and police had to patrol both events.
City officials have proposed moving the party to a parking lot at AT&T Park, and luring a top-name entertainer to help private promoters recoup the costs of the event.
"People are still going to go to the Castro," said Ted Strawser, founder of the San Francisco Party Party, a group that opposes the move. "Without services, they're just going to pee in the street, and without entertainment, mischief will occur."
I had a great time guest co-hosting with RU Sirius and Jeff Diehl on this week's RU Sirius show. (MP3 - 26 MB)
We talked about election fraud (what a surprise) and interviewed Dan the Automator (Dan's myspace page).
Photos are forthcoming, but I hate to hold up posting for anything these days, because I seem to never get back to it...
This is actually a remix of some of my music - as opposed to one of "my remixes."
Just found this on CC Mixter:
Submarine (Featuring Lisa Rein)
by Briareus
This track uses my acapella track of "He pepe and me."
I'm getting a lot of remix mileage out of that acapella track! (like 9 remixes!)
I gotta get more stuff up there!
 | Mc Jack In The Box put in some of my vocals from Acapella Hepepe and Me into a new cool remix called: Slamlord. |
I think I've said it before, but there's really something goin on worth checking out over at:
CC Mixter.
Wow. I can't believe I never posted my
Songs From The Commons show (#12). (Let's just say I'm busier than I think I've ever been in my entire life, doubled. )
But still. How could I have forgotten to tell you about it, after all that work? It took me a long time and I remember feeling good about it when it was done, although right now I'm consumed by too many things to remember why...
Oh yeah, it has my remix of Mc Jack In The Box's remix of Brad Sucks in it, for one thing. I was also pleased with how well Cindy Sheehan and friends' protesting at the UN was adapted to a beat.
The subject is recent developments in Creative Commons search tools:
1. http://creativecommons.org/find/
The CC folks threw a user interface on top of the google and yahoo searches.
It's also a great place to see a lot of great CC repositories all in one place.2. Flickr's Creative Commons Page
http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/
Browse by license on this popular photography site.
3. Google's Advanced search feature:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=enAcross from the heading "Usage Rights," you will wee a drop down selector.
I just uploaded my fifth SFTC podcast.
This show features tracks from Wired's Creative Commons CD DJ Dolores, Dan The Automator, The Beastie Beastie Boys, and Thievery Corporation. Everything is available under CC's Sampling Plus License.
More music, less talk, this show. And starting next week, all of these shows will be available in a "yapping free" format. I'm doing this because, it seems to me, that after you hear the spoken portion once or twice, you'd probably be done with it. While a music-only version can live on in your Ipod...FOREVER! (crescendo...echo...fade out...)
My cc mixter page is up now.
I've uploaded my first track, Maybe We Can All Do Something, which features Craig Newmark and Fourstones. It's from my last podcast for Mondoglobo.net.
I've been getting a lot of stuff for my show from cc mixter. It's just a great site!
This whole next month of
SCOUT shows is gonna be sw-eet.
First of all, due to popular demand, Variable Unit will be jamming a lot more on its own.
Another change: We're having a different DJ every week now for the opener.
This week, DJ Quest. Next week, DJ Marz (another of the Space Travelers). The week after that, we don't know yet...
Here's the line up for tomorrow night's show. (Wed June 1, 2005)
DJ Quest - Opening from 9-10pm
Guest MCs:
MC Link-Letterz
(Ctrl Z)
Paulie Rhyme
(Finless Brown)
JBo
(Nightcrawlers)
Zealous
Special Guests TBA
It would be great if you headed down to the Red Devil Lounge this Wednesday, May 11, for SCOUT. (And do please stop by and say "hi," if you do come by. I'm easy to find :-)
We've just announced the
line up of MCs for May 11th, and it's a goodin:
Celsius 7 and Spidey of Psychokinetics
Mic Blake and HoFlow
(Bopcity/Alphabet Soup)
All four MCs from
Felonius: One Love Hip Hop
D.Wolf, Soulati, A kid named Keith, and Infinite
All three MCs from The Greans (Oposit, Cold Showda, and King Solomon)
The Genie-scratch guitar
(thegeniemusic.com)
Proficy
Special Guests TBA
The
May 4 show was incredible. here are some photos.
I'll be putting up videos and mp3s right here in a bit...
Hi guys. Sorry I've been away for so long, but the reason I've been so busy is that I've been planning and organizing SCOUT, a nine week series of concerts at the Red Devil Lounge in San Francisco that will be going on every Wednesday night in May and June.
Here's the deal: MCs can show up and freestyle, or bring prepared lyrics, and they get to perform with Variable Unit a band that Straight No Chaser called "The most talented band the States has to offer." We'll be recording the show every night (all nine of em) and the best tracks will be on a SCOUT CD that comes out in October.
We just landed international distribution this year, so SCOUT will be released in the UK, France, Spain, Japan, and many other countries when it's released in October.
VU's new album, Mayhemystics OutBreaks just came out today, and I'm particularly excited about it for purely selfish reasons. It's the first "real" record that I've been on -- singing background vocals on the track Black Gold, which is a song about the Iraqi war and the U.S. exploitation of Iraq for its oil. (Although based primarily on a frightening dream that Gregory Howe had one night, it was also inspired by this Bill Moyers program about the real "Iraqi Gold Rush.")
So that's the scoop guys. Email me at scout@widehive.com if you're interested.
And everybody should come to the SCOUT shows in May and June at the Red Devil Lounge.
Cubik and Origami will be opening the show every night. (More on them later.)
Trent Reznor is making his next Nine Inch Nails record available in a GarageBand Format. He's basically making the source files available for mash-ups and remixes. You can't sell them, but you can make and redistribute freely, which is pretty cool. Right on Trent.
Hope the album's a good one. I still relish in Downward Spiral occasionally. I love that record. I still think "Closer" raised the bar on percussion in the rock world forever.
anyway...yadda, yadda, yadda.
Thanks Pete!
Remember that it's "Sunset Salvage" now :-) since we got sued.
Here are some free MP3s if you want to check it out.
Village Voice Critic's Poll For 2004
Update 3/3/05 - Wow! Has a week gone by already! Tonight's the night guys. We'll be there from about 7pm on. Cubik and Origami are on from 8-11pm.
These guys are really cool. Their equipment consists of three turntables, a couple laptops, and even a bass and other instruments that they play live -- all blended together in their set.
Hope to see you there!
Hey gang! I'm having a party next Thursday night (not tonight, but next week - March 3, 2005).
Well actually,
Wide Hive Records is having a party, but I'm taking the opportunity to invite all my friends and readers since I haven't seen so many of you for so long.
Cubik and Origami is the latest offering from Wide Hive. Their first EP (vinyl only) is due out in May. Their second EP (vinyl only) and first CD will be out in June. Here's a sample that's not even up on the website yet.
We'll be there from the early evening on.
I've got about 50 test pressings available. Djs should Email me at lisa@widehive.com to let me know you're coming and would like a test pressing so I don't run out on ya.
See you there!
Our latest release at Wide Hive is Plate Fork Knife Spoon. It's basically the Crown City Rockers' rhythm section with Eric Krasno from Soulive on guitar and David Boyce from the Brown Fellinis on Sax.
Crown City emcee Raashan Ahmad guests on one track, Wonder.
(MP3 - 6 MB). It's my favorite track on the record.
Give it a listen...
Wonder is only available on the CD and 12" (not the LP. The 12" also contains an Exclusive beat, "Sabado."
Update 2/7/05 - found it! It's called
Callin On Sunday by Party Ben. thanks guys!
I heard a mash-up of Lyric Born's "Calling Out" and U2's "Sunday Bloody Sunday" the other day on San Francisco's Live 105.
I want to hear it again, but it doesn't seem to be anywhere. Can you guys help me out?
It's cool to hear Lyrics Born blowin up on Live 105. It reminds me to plug our
DJ Zeph 12" (and CD) that features Lyrics Born:
Hands Up. (MP3 - 5 MB)
You can also buy it on iTunes.
I had just signed up for a PayPal account too, and was in the process of verifying my bank account. Now I think I don't want to get involved with these guys.
Mark Perkel learned this the hard way, when PayPal gave his account "limited" status after deciding it didn't like some of the content on his website. Furthermore, right before it shut down his account, it reversed a deposit that one of his clients had transferred to his PayPal account, but it did not return the money to his client's bank account after removing it from Perkel's bank account.
According to PayPal's User Agreement, (It's probably the Accessible Use policy regarding adult material that he violated.), if it chooses to make your account "limited," (PayPal has the authorization to do so at any time based on its own discretion), it can and will hold the funds in your PayPal account for 180 days.
Turns out that money is in limbo until Perkel writes PayPal in a secure email on its website and asks for this to be done explicitly. This is despite the fact that he asked them to do so over the phone. (And why wouldn't they have already done so anyway? - if they were reversing the transaction, when the money left Perkel's account, it should have gone back to where it came from.)
PayPal claims that they hold the money for 180 days to "protect ourselves from potential reversals" to the accounts. But there's a free speech issue here - why is PayPal going around making judgements about it's customers' websites anyway? Who's going to be next? Is your PayPal account something you don't want to keep too much money in at any one time, since they can freeze your account and hold it up for 180 days?
These are the questions going through my mind after listing to this MP3 of Marc Perkel talking to Paypal.
If you're listen to the MP3, and in a hurry, the relevant portion is at about 6 min 50 seconds into it. But if you've got a minute, listen to the whole thing. It's pretty interesting.
So Perkel may have violated their user agreement, but closing his account without giving him a chance to take his money out, and then holding on to not only the money he had in his account, but the money his client had transferred to him the day before the account was closed doesn't seem right.
Marc's started an anti-paypal website, to let people know about his experience, but I'm not telling you to boycott these guys necessarily. I just want you to know about this so you can make your own decision. Maybe there's a perfectly good reason why PayPal works for you. Fine.
(This MP3 might also have some great samples in it for you Dee Jay/Audiophile types. Don't say I didn't tell ya :-)
Here's some information for anyone who is interested in the news story about PayPal and their lawsuit settlement over freezing customer's accounts:
Here's the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
http://news.com.com/PayPal+settles+customer+suit/2100-1038_3-5233490.html
Last modified: June 14, 2004, 4:38 PM PDT
By Paul Festa
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Print story E-mail story Your take
PayPal has reached a preliminary settlement with some customers who accused the eBay unit of illegally freezing their funds.
The company on Friday said it will pay a total of $9.25 million to settle the federal class-action suit, $3.4 million of which will pay lawyers' fees and costs.
PayPal admitted no wrongdoing in settling the claims, which were filed in 2002 as part of two federal class-action suits that also alleged other customer service deficiencies.
Those two cases were merged, and a third case, pending in California state court, will be dismissed if the settlement agreement is approved.
"In this agreement, PayPal does not acknowledge that any of the allegations in the case are true," PayPal said in an e-mail to customers. The unit "entered into the settlement agreement to avoid further costs of litigation and to devote resources to more productive areas of our business."
An attorney for PayPal customers called the settlement a win not only in securing a financial reward, but in changing the way PayPal does business.
"I think we got it right," said Daniel Girard, a partner with Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo in San Francisco. "The settlement provides for cash recovery and also for a series of changes to the operating procedures at PayPal."
Between June and September 2003, while the litigation was still pending, PayPal released $5.1 million in frozen customer funds, Girard said. As part of the settlement, PayPal agreed to change the way it handled dispute resolution.
PayPal acknowledged that the settlement included an injunction mandating certain changes to the company's procedures, but maintained that the modifications had come about independent of the litigation.
"PayPal has always been looking for ways to improve customer service," said company spokeswoman Amanda Pires. The litigation "didn't really change the way PayPal has been operating. We have improved our customer service as part of our normal course of business."
PayPal claims 45 million member accounts around the world.
The settlement was the product of mediation, begun early last fall, before a court-appointed special master. Within a week, the parties plan to file the preliminary settlement with the U.S. District Court in San Jose, Calif., for approval.
The case involves PayPal customers who used the service between Oct. 1, 1999 and Jan. 31, 2004. European Union residents are excluded.
PayPal said it will publish the allocation plan in July or August. Customers will be informed of settlement terms within two months of the court's preliminary approval.
Here's the text from the website in case the link goes bad:
http://paypal.ctyme.com/paypal/paypalsucks.htm
PayPal Sucks - Closed my Account - Keeping my Money
I'm in the process of building my PayPal sucks site and this blog entry is the first step. It's the art of being an asshole. I'm sure I'm not the only one that PayPal has ripped off and probably won't be the last - but I will be the one they remember the most.
I got an email today from PayPal that they are closing my account. The reason for closing my account is that they claim they don't like the content of my web site - specifically my site on Sexual Issues where I have my Men's Guide to Escort Services - a guide to interacting with hookers, The Nerd's Guide to Sex - a guide teaching men how to properly have sex with women, and The Shy Girl's Guide to Becoming a Whore - a women's guide to surviving the Bush Ecomony.
So - because they didn't like my web site content they not only decided to cancel my PayPal account - but to also keep my money for 180 days. And - I had transfered my money out of PayPal yesterday - but after closing my account today they reversed yesterday's transaction and are going to steal my money.
The people at PayPay are real mother fuckers. But I to am an asshole and I don't get mad - I get even. Whenever I get screwed by someone I use my talents of being a real prick to turn the tables on them and make them feel the heat.
PayPal claims that according to their End User Agreement that they have the right to close down my account for any reason whatsoever - without any form of recourse - keep my money for 180 days - and there's nothing that I can do about it. Well Paypal you on wrong about that because there's a lot to do about it.
I am a person who values free speech and fights hard against censorship and the Corparations like eBay who owns PayPay who think they can come in and tell ME what I can say on the Internet. Well I say - fuck you PayPal! I will not only keep my right to FREE SPEECH but I will use that right to expose you for what you really are.
Now - for those of you who are reading this - you probably don't entirely grasp the details of what I'm talking about. You think - this is PayPal - they have to be more ethical than that don't they? I say - yes they do. So I called them on the phone about it to get them to explain it to me in their own words. And I RECORDED THE CONVERSTATION IN THIS MP3 FILE SO YOU ALL CAN HERE IT FOR YOURSELF!
First things first. The file you are listening to is edited. But the important content is unaltered. I removed about 20 minutes of on hold messages so that you wouldn't have to sit through the wait time. The rest of it is everything that was said between me and PayPal.
What really fun about this is that I got them to say just exactly what they did to me and how they ripped me off and how they aren't going to do anything to fix it. What you hear is a real life detailed experience that I had and what PayPal's end user agreement really means to you - so that if you are thinking about doing business with PayPal - or you are already a PayPal or eBay customer - you might want to reread that user agreement and see if this is really what you want to be agreeing to.
In the recorded conversation - after getting them to plainly explain how they are screwing me - I anounce to them that I have recorded this phone call - and that I'm going to put it on the Internet. All of a sudden it is them flipping out and screaming about their rights - but - there's nothing they can do about it. You see - I'm not the only one who has no choice. When I dialed up PayPal - the very first thing their machine said was, "This call may be recorded." So - I recorded it. Listen to the squeal about their rights - but I don't give a fuck about their rights because they don't give a fuck about my rights.
The big corps think they hold all the cards - but there are things that we consumers can do to fight back. After all 0 this is a country of the people, by the people, and for the people. Not of big corporation who think they can enslave us and walk over us any time they want to. I want this web site to be a turtorial about how people like you and me can stand up to these motherfuckers and show them that the People rule. And we do that by taking money out of their pockets.
Now - there are plenty of other people out there with similar stories of being censored or otherwise ripped off be PayPal and the comment section is open for you to tell your PayPal story. Go ahead and put in links to other PayPay sucks sites and tell us who is better. It's time that the online community organized to move away from unethical corporations like eBay who owns PayPal and find services who will play ball with us on OUR TERMS.
And - I want you to let PayPal know that you saw this web site and let them know what you think aboiut it. Here is an Email Form to tell them - you saw it hear - you listened to the recording - and what you think about it.
One think to keep in mind is - PayPal is not a bank - nor do you have the protection that banks offer. They are also not a credit card company. They act like they are a fiscal instution but Master Card and Visa aren't playing moral police with me. And as you can see - if they decide to take your money - they just take it. Even if you transfer your money out of paypal the day before they close your account.
Also - if you are going to link to this page - don't use the blog url. Use this URL instead:
http://paypal.ctyme.com/paypal/paypalsucks.htm
Here's another PayPal Warning Site I found.
Other PayPal Sucks Sites:
http://www.paypalsucks.com/
http://www.internationalterrorist.com/paypal.html
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/05/18/0128201.shtml?tid=126&tid=153&tid=172&tid=93&tid=95&tid=99
http://www.gnutellanews.com/article/12148
http://www.tcj.com/messboard/ubb/Forum1/HTML/007500.html
http://seclists.org/lists/politech/2003/Mar/0040.html
http://dir.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/02/23/pay_pal/index.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/paypal.html
http://www.aboutpaypal.org/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paypalperil/
http://www.outofthedark.com/CorporateWars/PayPal/index.html
http://www.ygoodman.com/paypal.asp
What is PayPal?
PayPal is an online service that allows you to email money to other people.
----------------------
Why is my account access limited?
Your account access has been limited for the following reason(s):
# Jun. 13, 2004: In accordance with PayPal's User Agreement and Acceptable Use Policy, we have closed your account. Your funds may be held for 180 days from the date of your last transaction. After 180 days, you will be able to access your funds by requesting an online bank transfer or, if applicable, a check from PayPal. Please update your address or bank information as we cannot be held responsible for checks issued to an incorrect address. We do ask that you please remove reference(s) to PayPal from your site.
(Your case ID for this reason is PP-040-853-646.)
Posted by marc at June 13, 2004 07:59 PM | TrackBack
Comments
i feel for u mate.. i had my paypal account closed, and by the time i was able to come back to the civilized world to do anything,(was out in the outback) my money, my account all gone.The reason they gave me was inactivity on my account so they took it to themselves to close and wipe my money clean.Your reasons was more obsecure.. wat does an online content (what u write on the net) has anything to do with paypal?
screw them real good!
Posted by: ixnay at June 13, 2004 09:11 PM
Large corporations are all, repeat, all crooked. You will need a website the size of Siberia to contain all the "so and so sucks" information. Let me suggest:
CORPORATIONS SUCK
They are Re-animated Companies. They take a company that has been sold (aka dead) and artificially re-animate it with money from absentee stock-holders. These Frankenstein's Monsters are ruling the world. Nice, huh?
They are evil incarnate. Whaddaya gonna do?
Posted by: Dancho at June 13, 2004 09:49 PM
the URL to the MP3 is 404, bro.
Drew
Posted by: drew niese at June 13, 2004 10:01 PM
As far as the reversal of transaction goes, I think you have a legitimate right to complain.
But I don't think you can call foul as far as PayPal's closing your account is concerned.
From the "User Agreement for PayPal Services":
"This User Agreement ("Agreement") is a contract between you and PayPal, Inc. and applies to your use of the PayPal™ payment service and any related products and services available through www.paypal.com (collectively the "Service"). If you do not agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement, please do not use or access our Services.
You must read, agree with, and accept all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement and the Privacy Policy, which include those terms and conditions expressly set out below and those incorporated by reference, before you may become a member of PayPal. We strongly recommend that, as you read this Agreement, you also access and read the information contained in the other pages and websites referred to in this document, as they may contain further terms and conditions that apply to you as a PayPal user. Please note: underlined words and phrases are links to these pages and websites. By accepting this Agreement, you also agree that your use of other PayPal websites and Services will be governed by the terms and conditions posted on those websites."
One of the links is the "Acceptable Use Policy", and one of the examples of prohibited services/sites is "information sites or directories that provide links to adult sites or escort services".
PayPal isn't telling you what you can and can't say on the internet. They're not shutting your site down. Private companies *do* have the right to dictate what their services can and can't be used for.
PayPal didn't close your account because of something so arbitrary as "they don't like the content of your web site". They closed it because you broke terms of usage that you had agreed to when you signed up for their services in the first place.
Posted by: MadBlue at June 14, 2004 03:49 AM
Never, NEVER keep a large balance with Paypal. Damn, 6 months sure seems like a long time to keep somebody's money! That's a helluva float! Whatever happened to 30 days, 60 days, even 90 days? Okay, so 6 months go by and then what - They make your money disappear for inactivity like that poor Aussi who was outback!?
Posted by: richard at June 14, 2004 04:14 AM
Hey, that recording was funny as hell. Well, obviously, congress has to legislate laws to protect the consumer against paypal/ebay. I never use paypal when I put something up for auction on ebay. Hey, just imagine, ebay just closed my account for a bullshit infraction. That means that they probably would have frozen my paypal account too.
How's that song go... Alicia, Alicia...la la la la
Posted by: richard at June 14, 2004 04:35 AM
I don't buy keeping the money for 6 fucking months to cover potential complaints. I mean, what if they had already sent you the money; how would they cover their complaints then?
Posted by: richard at June 14, 2004 04:43 AM
If PAYPAL is acting as any merchant account, they reserve the right to hold funds to handle claims. As a businessman I am not totally bothered by this, if you agree to it. But, I do believe the owner of the account should earn ALL the interest from those funds. Now, I'll go listen to the tape.
Posted by: X-FREEPER at June 14, 2004 06:14 AM
"PayPal still faces probes by the FTC and other states regarding how it does business, including procedures dealing with times when product is not delivered after payment is received, and PayPal's account-freezing policies."
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2004Mar/gee20040310024206.htmw
Posted by: Babylonian at June 14, 2004 07:51 AM
Mark, I was reading one of your err... other sites...lol....hey, I don't mean to burst your bubble but...BUT... the reason those escorts were telling you that you are so good in bed is because...err.......u were PAYING them and they wanted a tip plus more business in the future.
Posted by: richard at June 14, 2004 07:57 AM
While less than ethical, what PayPal did was perfectly legal. You agreed to their license agreement in the beginning, obviously without reading the whole thing (but honestly, who does?).
As for tape recording you conversation with PayPal... you're gonna wind up in serious shit. That's recording a phone conversation without expressly telling the other party that the call is being recorded is a felony. If they want to, they can sue you to hell and back if you post that conversation on the internet (like you did). If I were you, I'd get rid of it--it's evidence against you.
Posted by: Mance at June 14, 2004 10:35 AM
No, I think that since Paypal's own recording said that the conversation would be recorded puts Mark in the clear.
Posted by: richard at June 14, 2004 11:17 AM
Unfortunately, that's not true. The recording said that it is possible that the call may be recorded, but PayPal is required by law to notify all customers of such a recording. IF you argue semantics with a judge, it's not going to help you.
Posted by: Mance at June 14, 2004 01:14 PM
Dude... you got your Paypal logo right there on your site. Gotta get rid of that...
Posted by: Dancho at June 14, 2004 02:55 PM
your blog on Reagan must have offended Paypal.
Posted by: celery at June 14, 2004 05:51 PM
I don't have a problem with Paypal canceling his account, because they're notorious for not dealing with immoral (to them) stuff. Marc's site does push the comfort level (though I find it informative and hilarious, but that's just me.) And, anyway, that's their right. They can do business with whoever they want. And I can do business with whoever I want. No one's forcing people to use Paypal. Plenty of alternatives out there.
But I do have a serious problem with their holding his funds. They should freeze his account, so that he can only move his funds out, and do nothing else. But tying up his cash is, in my opinion, severely unethical. Not sure what can be done about it, though, except spread the word and cost them business. Worked for me. I avoid Paypal whenever possible now.
So--anyway. I'm starting up an Internet business later this year, and need reviews on digital currency, since Paypal is out. Was out a long time ago. I've heard this happen to lots of people. Anybody use e-gold or its competitors? What did you think?
And, yeah, I was wondering about the legality of taping people without their consent/knowledge. Anybody know the relevant statute? What kind of trouble has Marc got himself into?
Posted by: curt at June 14, 2004 05:58 PM
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 18. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 119--WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION AND
INTERCEPTION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
I guess there are states that have a two party notification law..but most states require single...and since you consented at the beginning of the conversation...when they asked...not that there seemed to be a choice offered to you of a press 1 if you consent, or press 2 if you do not...seems to me when they announce it they are just telling you they are and you have no choice.
The recording of the call was good...
Posted by: minerva at June 14, 2004 08:14 PM
Marc, that was the most enjoyable hour I just spent, reading your page and listening to that recording.
Its time big business gets back to basics and realizes just where they get these big bucks from..US. The people. Our little pocketbooks feed their big executive salaries and its time they felt the pinch, just as we have to.
I am cancelling my PayPal account today. Not that my little amount will hurt them, but spreading the word will. I realize that PayPal was bought by eBay, but new auction sites are opening up daily. Competition is good!!!
And to anyone who wants to go the 'moral route', go right ahead! I've been with Ctyme hosting for two years and nothing on Marc's site bothers me at all. AND, I'm a 60 year old lady, widowed and mother to a wonderful young man. If it doesn't bother me, it shouldn't bother anyone!!
You go, Marc!!
Posted by: Nightwalker at June 15, 2004 03:13 AM
Enough paypal already.
You know, after everything the White House has put this country of ours through, Cheney, despite it all, is in Florida perpetuating the lie that there was a link between Al Qaida and Sadam Hussein! This clown makes me want to puke!
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040615/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_terrorism_1
Cheney Claims al-Qaida Linked to Saddam
Mon Jun 14, 8:00 PM ET Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!
By MIKE SCHNEIDER, Associated Press Writer
ORLANDO, Fla. - Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) said Monday that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had "long-established ties" with al Qaida, an assertion that has been repeatedly challenged by some policy experts and lawmakers
The vice president offered no details backing up his claim of a link between Saddam and al Qaida.
"He was a patron of terrorism," Cheney said of Hussein during a speech before The James Madison Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Florida. "He had long established ties with al Qaida."
Posted by: richard at June 15, 2004 04:09 AM
Paypal closed my account because i received one payment from adult sponsor. I dont put paypal logo or watsoever on my websites and they closed it, leaving $2,800 in it. And they will not restore my account anymore. Paypal sucks! I will not recommend to my friends.
Posted by: Justin at June 15, 2004 05:45 AM
Unbelievable. PayPal doesn't like YOUR free speech, and gets all whiny when you expose their idiocy.
Ass soon as I drain my account, say buh-bye, Pay-former-"Pal"...
Posted by: gino at June 15, 2004 06:19 AM
Hold the account for 180 days for reversals? Yeah Right!
I got ripped off on eBay, payed with Paypal. Suppose to come in 3 days (express). After 7 days didn't show up. Seller's eBay account NARU'ed. Couldn't contact seller so I filed a Buyer complaint to reverse the transaction to get a refund of my money. After a week of Paypal "investigation", Paypal said they couldn't refund my money because there is NO FUNDS in the account! Why coundn't they reverse it?!?!
Posted by: Mr. A at June 15, 2004 11:35 AM
That's because the person closed it of their own volition, so there is no waiting period for reversals. On accounts that have been limited for some reason or another, they install this waiting period because they believe that people who have done something to warrant a closing might have trouble with reversals.
Posted by: Mance at June 15, 2004 03:12 PM
"This call may be recorded."
Not a complicated concept!
"May" implies a grant of permission; "might" implies the possibility of something occurring. (If I say you MAY use the phone, that is very different than saying you MIGHT use the phone. One conveys my approval for your engaging in that particular activity; the other conveys my assessment of your future activities.)
Marc's right, PayPal's wrong, and they (to be frank) are more fucked than Anna Nicole Smith if they think holding funds for 6 months is REASONABLE.
In the age of electronic banking, 180 days is an ETERNITY, and completely indefensible.
In my opinion.
;)
I'm going to London and Paris in a week, and I'm looking for cool record stores to hit while I'm in town. (I'm also looking for Drum and Bass and Hip Hop Clubs.)
I just found what seems to be a cool website with information on London recordstores, but I have no way of knowing if the information is current or not.
Thanks in advance for any advice you can give me!
I'm including the list I'm currently working from below. As the list improves, I will update it here (note the working date at the top).
Updated 3/19/04
Here is the full text of the entire page:
http://music.hyperreal.org/london/
central london rave shops - record stores
bottom of page | other London shops | flyer collectors | Hyperreal
BANGING TUNES - 15A Little Portland Street, London W1W 8BW
email: info@kinetec.com
tel: +44 (0)20 7323 5303
fax: +44 (0)20 7323 5909
Psych, Drum & Bass, Tech-House, US Techno, Gabba, Hardcore
BLACK MARKET - 25 D'Arblay Street, London W1V 3FH
email: mailo@blackmarket.co.uk
tel: +44 (0)20 7437 0478
fax: +44 (0)20 7494 1303
swing, rap, hip-hop, house, garage, jungle
CITY SOUNDS - 5 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS
tel: +44 (0)20 7405 5454
fax: +44 (0)20 7242 1863
house, garage [long established, new location]
CYBERDOG - 9 Earlham St, London WC2
email: sniff@cyberdogworld.demon.co.uk
tel: +44 (0)20 7836 7855
trance-techno [CDs only, in atmospheric clothes shop]
DEAL REAL - 6a Noel St, Soho, London W1V 3RB
tel: +44 (0)20 7734 8689
fax: +44 (0)20 7734 8979
hip-hop, soul, jazz, r&b, swing
EUKATECH - 49 Endell Street, London WC2
tel/fax: +44 (0)20 7240 8060
house, techno, trance, drum + bass
FLYING RECORDS - 94 Dean Street, London W1V 5RB
tel: +44 (0)20 7734 0172
fax: +44 (0)20 7287 0766
house, garage [above Major Flava's]
HAND SPUN - 31 D'Arblay Street, London W1V 3FG
tel: +44 (0)20 7734 7845
hip-hop
KOKON TO-ZAI [= "old-new-east-west"] - 57 Greek Street, London W1V 5LR
tel/fax: +44 (0)20 7434 1316
house, techno, groove, euro-trance [in intriguing shop]
KOOBLA - 17 Berwick Street, London W1F 0PT
email: tim@kooblarecords.com
www: http://www.kooblarecords.com
tel: +44 (0)20 7287 9909
fax: +44 (0)20 7287 9919
house, soul, techno, funk, electro, electronica
MAD RECORDS - 2 Silver Place, London W1F 0JP
email: info@madrecords.net
www: http://www.madrecords.net
tel: +44 (0)20 7439 0707
hard house, hard trance & nrg, progressive, trance, tech house, techno
MAJOR FLAVA'S - 94 Dean Street, London W1V 5RB
tel: +44 (0)20 7434 1406
fax: +44 (0)20 7287 0766
r'n'b, rap [downstairs from Flying Records]
MR BONGO - 44 Poland Street, London W1V 3DA
email: webmaster@mrbongo.com
www: http://www.mrbongo.com/
tel: +44 (0)20 7287 1821
fax: +44 (0)20 7439 1828
hip-hop, drum and bass, disco, techno, breaks, funk, jazz etc
PLASTIC FANTASTIC - 35 Drury Lane, London WC2B 5RH
email: shop@plasticfantastic.co.uk
www: http://www.plasticfantastic.co.uk
tel: +44 (0)20 7240 8055
fax: +44 (0)20 7240 7628
pumpin' house, progressive house, trance
RELEASE THE GROOVE - 20 Denman Street, London W1V 7RJ
email: release@music8.freeserve.co.uk
www: http://www.releasethegroove.co.uk/
tel: +44 (0)20 7734 7712
fax: +44 (0)20 7734 7713
jazz, r&b, drum&bass, house, London underground, garage
SILVERBACK - 40 Bloomsbury Way, London WC1A 2SA
email: info@silverbackrecords.co.uk
www: http://www.silverbackrecords.co.uk
tel: +44 (0)20 7404 9456
house, progressive, techno, breaks, drum n' bass, r&b
SOUNDS OF THE UNIVERSE - 7 Broadwick Street, London W1F 0DA
tel/fax: +44 (0)20 7494 2004
soul, funk, jazz, drum + bass, hip-hop
TRAX - 55 Greek Street, London W1V 5LR
tel: +44 (0)20 7734 0795
fax: +44 (0)20 8551 8525
euro dance specialists
UPTOWN - 3 D'Arblay Street, London W1V 3FD
tel: +44 (0)20 7434 3639
tel: +44 (0)20 7434 3650 (nail order)
fax: +44 (0)20 7434 3649
r'n'b, rap, garage, underground, house [promo specialist]
VINYL JUNKIES - 9 Berwick Street, London W1V 3RG
tel: +44 (0)20 7439 2775
fax: +44 (0)20 7287 2608
house, garage, techno, down tempo, miscellaneous beats [+ sitting area]
WYLD PYTCH (RECORD SPECIALISTS) - 51 Lexington Street, London W1R 4HL
tel: +44 (0)20 7434 3472
fax: +44 (0)20 7287 1403
hip hop, r&b, funk, soul, garage
XSF RECORDS - 39 Berwick Street, London W1V 3RE
email: records@xsfrecords.com
tel: +44 (0)20 7287 2496
Deep, Funky, Prog/Tribal House, Techno, Trance, Hard House, Breaks
u can check how to find them at UK Street Map or Multimap top of page | bottom of page | flyer collectors
other London rave shops & outlets
24 Carat, Caledonian Rd tel: +44 (0)20 7607 3334
Access All Areas, Camden NW1 tel: +44 (0) 20 7267 8320
Bassline Records, Kilburn tel: +44 (0)20 7372 5330
Body Music, Tottenham tel: +44 (0)20 8802 0147
Criminal Records, Walthamstowe tel: +44 (0)20 85033 2165
Deep Freeze, Camden tel: +44 (0)20 7424 0574
Hummit Records, 309 Kings Rd, Chelsea SW3 tel: +44 (0)20 7823 3584
Hype Records, Whetstone N20 tel: +44 (0)20 8445 5222
Paradox, 321 Upper Street, Islington N1 tel: +44 (0)20 7226 8530
Psychedelic Dream Temple, Camden NW1 tel: +44 (0)20 7267 8528
Pure Groove, 679 Holloway Rd, Archway N19 tel: (0)20 7281 4877
Record Village, 256 Hoe St, Walthamstowe E17 tel: (0)20 8520 7331
Remix, 247 Evershot St, Camden NW1 tel: (0)20 7387 2208
Rhythm Division, 391 Roman Rd, Bethnal Green E3 tel: +44 (0)20 8981 2203
R.O.A.R. Records, Elephane & Castle tel: (0)20 7708 3001
Rugged Records, Deptford tel: (0)20 8692 3311
Scream Records - 12 Ashfield Parade, Southgate N14 tel: +44 (0)20 8886 2317
Section 5, 121 Kings Rd, Chelsea SW3 tel: (0)20 7351 6853
Shed Records, 32 Western Hill, Crystal Palace SE19 tel: (0)20 8761 5080
Sonic House Records, 247 Evershot St, Camden NW1 tel: (0)20 7387 6440
Spin City Records, 374 Edgeware Rd, Paddington W2 tel: (0)20 7258 0300
The Mess, 225 St Johns Hill, Battersea SW11 tel: (0)20 7207 1276
The Vibe, 91-95 Brick Lane, Bethnal Green E1 tel: (0)20 7247 3479
Total Music, 2A Ellsworth St, Bethnal Green E2 tel: (0)20 7473 3000
Trakheadz, 117 Kentish Town Road, Camden tel: +44 (0)20 7428 1845
Trix Trax, Battersea tel: (0)20 7223 1995
Ultimate Dance Music - 30 Southbury Rd, Enfield EN1 1SA tel: 020 8366 5422
Vinyl Mania, 214 Northfield Ave, Ealing W13 tel: (0)20 7566 5244
Wired For Sound, Hackney tel: (0)20 8985 7531
and some other UK outlets
Hard To Find Records - Lonsdale House, 52 Blucher St, Birmingham B1 1QU
Mixa-Ma-Tosis - 14 The Triangle, Bournemouth BH2 5RY tel: 01202 319770
Nine Bar Records - 45 Upper High St, Epsom KT17 4RA tel: 01372 729861
Phat Trax - 2 Lower Road, Loughton, Essex IG10 2RS tel: 0208 508 1431
Sound Zone - 25 East Walk, Basildon, Essex SS14 1HA
Streetwise Music - 76 King Street, Cambridge CB1 1LP tel/fax 01223 300496
Vinyl Express - 210a High Street, Bangor, Gwynedd LL15 1NY tel: 01248 354535
Vinyl Underground - 80 Abington St, Northampton NN1 2BB tel: 01604 634433
I'm going to be in a hip hop video being shot next week by Ryan Junell. The song is called Under Surveillence by the group Variable Unit.
By a strange coincidence, that very same day I was recruited for the video, Billy Jam sent me this story, which details a situation where Dave Paul, owner of San Francisco's tiny Independent BOMB Hip Hop record label, was questioned by two Secret Service Agents who were responding to a tip from Cheaptickets.com, who claimed Paul had made threatening statements about the Shrub while purchasing tickets over the phone.
Check it out:
 |
Hip Hop Record Label Owner Dave Paul Interrogated By Secret Service Under Suspicion Of Being Threat To President George W. Bush by Billy Jam for HipHopSlam.com |
"The Secret Service showed up at my door. I was not here. They had told my mom that I had said some stuff on the phone and that I needed to answer to it. So I called the agent on his phone and he claimed that cheaptickets.com had reported to them that I had said some things about George W. Bush when I was on the phone working on my flight. I assured them that I said absolutely nothing and they wanted to come over and interview me in person, which they did with two agents. And they even wanted to come in and take a look around my room to make sure that there were no photos of "so-called person" with a target drawn on it or something to that effect. I don't know if it's someone at cheaptickets lying or maybe the Secret Service just used that as an excuse to investigate since the name of the record company.... I even gave them a flyer for tonight's show but they didn't look like they were too interested. I invited them down. They were pretty nice about it. I think just because when you're making flight reservations and the company name is what it is and that's what on your credit card and it shows four people going to Oklahoma City that I'm sure someone at cheaptickets pulled a red flag on it."Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad: http://www.hiphopslam.com/news/hhs_news_service_020a.html • SPECIAL REPORT! — Bomb Hip Hop owner Dave Paul Interrogated by The Secret Service HIP HOP RECORD LABEL OWNER DAVE PAUL INTERROGATED BY SECRET SERVICE UNDER SUSPICION OF BEING THREAT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH by Billy Jam exclusive to HipHopSlam.com On October 22nd, in what has to be one of the weirdest turn of events in post September 11th America, Dave Paul, the owner of San Francisco's tiny independent BOMB Hip Hop record label was paid an unexpected visit by two US Secret Service agents. The two government agents were reportedly following up on a tip from a source that claimed Paul had made a threatening statement about US President Bush while buying airline tickets to Oklahoma City for himself and three other DJs (Pone, Quest, T-Rock) who were all flying out very late that night on tour to celebrate the recently released "Return of the DJ Vol. 5". Immediately after the federal investigators left the Noe Valley home that Paul shares with his mother, he talked with HipHopSlam.Com NEWS from his home office phone. During that phone conversation he appeared unusually guarded and self edited. Later that evening at club MILK, scene of the hometown concert for the new DJ album, the still shaken DJ/label owner explained that he didn't want to use particular words over the phone because he believed it may be bugged: noting that he had been noticing unusual "clicking sounds" for several days but - up until then - had made nothing of it. During that phone conversation we asked him to explain exactly what had transpired? His response: "The Secret Service showed up at my door. I was not here. They had told my mom that I had said some stuff on the phone and that I needed to answer to it. So I called the agent on his phone and he claimed that cheaptickets.com had reported to them that I had said some things about George W. Bush when I was on the phone working on my flight. I assured them that I said absolutely nothing and they wanted to come over and interview me in person, which they did with two agents. And they even wanted to come in and take a look around my room to make sure that there were no photos of "so-called person" with a target drawn on it or something to that effect. I don't know if it's someone at cheaptickets lying or maybe the Secret Service just used that as an excuse to investigate since the name of the record company.... I even gave them a flyer for tonight's show but they didn't look like they were too interested. I invited them down. They were pretty nice about it. I think just because when you're making flight reservations and the company name is what it is and that's what on your credit card and it shows four people going to Oklahoma City that I'm sure someone at cheaptickets pulled a red flag on it." One of the words avoided by Paul was that of Bush's and also his label's name, BOMB, which as we know is a no-no to utter in any airport. And apparently now just to say it over the phone while buying tickets is also a no-no. Later that evening Paul said that he figured that the whole incident was just some random check and that there would most likely be nothing more to it. However after doing some research and investigations of our own at HipHopSlam we uncovered something interesting: the fact that on the 1995 BOMB album, Return of the DJ at the very end of the *Invisible Scratch Pickles' track that there was sample of a news reporter saying "After the bombing, police in Oklahoma City issued an all points bulletin for three men - at least two of them described as being of middle eastern origin. This in response to an eyewitness who claims to have seen them at the scene. Federal officials say they have leads but no suspects." Coincidence or implication that the Feds have been studying old BOMB compilations in their "homeland security" efforts? On October 26th we caught up with Dave Paul, who was in Texas en route to the Houston show that evening, and asked him if he thought the Secret Service had been researching this deeply and uncovered this news bite (sampled incidentally by QBert)? He said he doubted it but that it was an uncanny coincidence. Again he reiterated that he figured the Secret Service were probably just doing a routine check and that most likely he wouldn't hear from them again. So would he consider changing the name of his record label from BOMB to something else for fear of future repeat scenarios? "No!" - he said. The BOMB Hip Hop DJs Dave Paul, Quest, T-Rock, and Pone will play Dallas on Monday, October 27th and be back in California by October 29th. For more info on the tour or music visit: www.bombhiphop.com *NOTE: Early spelling of the Piklz name when the crew was a trio feat. Qbert, Shortkut, and Disk. This same track also appeared with the sample intact on Bill Laswell's "Altered Beats" compilation when the crew was billed a quartet with Mixmaster Mike added
Digital Cutup Lounge has released a new creation using the Orrin Hatch audio that I audio hijacked from the real video feed (requires Real player - may need to launch Real player first and cut and paste URL to launch).
I had made the AIFFs available for just such a purpose!
Orrin vs the Machines [I Want To Ask You A Bunch Of Questions mix]
Okay so Wired News has a great story about how Orinn Hatch says one thing and does another with regard to respecting copyright laws. Perhaps now he will just admit that he didn't understand how easy it is to "violate copyright" (gasp!) unknowlingly.
Meanwhile, a link to the the real feed of the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on P2P and Filesharing Networks where he made his original inflammatory remarks finds its way to my mailbox. (Clip starts a little bit after 1 hour 28 minutes on the real feed when Hatch gives a little speech at the end.)
And voila, MP3s and uncompressed AIFF files of the most damning part of his little speech are born.
The "original" version was pretty quiet -- so I increased the gain and made the "louder" versions of the MP3 and AIFF files. But for you purists who would rather increase the gain on your own, I left the original in the directory.
There's also another guy talking in the beginning of the "original"-- which is edited out of the "louder" versions.
Enjoy!
Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
http://wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,59305,00.html
Welcome to Wired News. Skip directly to: Search Box, Section Navigation, Content.
Wired News
Search:
Text Size: Small Text Normal Text Large Text Larger Text [Home][Technology][Culture][Business][Politics][Wired Magazine Site][Animation Express]
Orrin Hatch: Software Pirate?
By Leander Kahney | Also by this reporter Page 1 of 1
11:56 AM Jun. 19, 2003 PT
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) suggested Tuesday that people who download copyright materials from the Internet should have their computers automatically destroyed.
But Hatch himself is using unlicensed software on his official website, which presumably would qualify his computer to be smoked by the system he proposes.
* Story Tools
[Print story] [E-mail story]
* See also
* Hatch Wants to Fry Traders' PCs
* Will GOP Shake Up Tech Policy?
* Hatching Plans for Stem-Cell Law
* Music a Pol Can Subscribe To
* Picture Yourself in Politics
* Today's Top 5 Stories
* Saddam's Homepage Gets Face Lift
* Smart Bricks, or a Dumb Idea?
* Columbia House Jumps in Game Biz
* The Sound of Stolen Thunder
* Orrin Hatch: Software Pirate?
The senator's site makes extensive use of a JavaScript menu system developed by Milonic Solutions, a software company based in the United Kingdom. The copyright-protected code has not been licensed for use on Hatch's website.
"It's an unlicensed copy," said Andy Woolley, who runs Milonic. "It's very unfortunate for him because of those comments he made."
Hatch on Tuesday surprised a Senate hearing on copyright issues with the suggestion that technology should be developed to remotely destroy the computers of people who illegally download music from the Net.
Hatch said damaging someone's computer "may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights," the Associated Press reported. He then suggested the technology would twice warn a computer user about illegal online behavior, "then destroy their computer."
Any such technology would be in violation of federal antihacking laws. The senator, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, suggested Congress would have to make copyright holders exempt from current laws for them to legally destroy people's computers.
On Wednesday, Hatch clarified his comments, but stuck by the original idea. "I do not favor extreme remedies -- unless no moderate remedies can be found," he said in a statement. "I asked the interested industries to help us find those moderate remedies."
Just as well. Because if Hatch's terminator system embraced software as well as music, his servers would be targeted for destruction.
Milonic Solutions' JavaScript code used on Hatch's website costs $900 for a site-wide license. It is free for personal or nonprofit use, which the senator likely qualifies for.
However, the software's license stipulates that the user must register the software to receive a licensing code, and provide a link in the source code to Milonic's website.
On Wednesday, the senator's site met none of Milonic's licensing terms. The site's source code (which can be seen by selecting Source under the View menu in Internet Explorer) had neither a link to Milonic's site nor a registration code.
However, by Thursday afternoon Hatch's site had been updated to contain some of the requisite copyright information. An old version of the page can be seen by viewing Google's cache of the site.
"They're using our code," Woolley said Wednesday. "We've had no contact with them. They are in breach of our licensing terms."
When contacted Thursday, Woolley said the company that maintains the senator's site had e-mailed Milonic to begin the registration process. Woolley said the code added to Hatch's site after the issue came to light met some -- but not all -- of Milonic's licensing requirements.
Before the site was updated, the source code on Hatch's site contained the line: "* i am the license for the menu (duh) *"
Woolley said he had no idea where the line came from -- it has nothing to do with him, and he hadn't seen it on other websites that use his menu system.
"It looks like it's trying to cover something up, as though they got a license," he said.
A spokesman in Hatch's office on Wednesday responded, "That's ironic" before declining to put Wired News in contact with the site's webmaster. He deferred comment on the senator's statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which did not return calls.
The apparent violation was discovered by Laurence Simon, an unemployed system administrator from Houston, who was poking around Hatch's site after becoming outraged by his comments.
Milonic's Woolley said the senator's unlicensed use of his software was just "the tip of the iceberg." He said he knows of at least two other senators using unlicensed copies of his software, and many big companies.
Continental Airlines, for example, one of the largest airlines in the United States, uses Woolley's system throughout its Continental.com website. Woolley said the airline has not paid for the software. Worse, the copyright notices in the source code have been removed.
"That really pisses me off," he said.
A spokesman for Continental said the airline would look into the matter.
Woolley makes his living from his software. Like a lot of independent programmers, he struggles to get people to conform to his licensing terms, let alone pay for his software.
"We don't want blood," he said. "We just want payment for the hard work we do. We work very, very hard. If they're not prepared to pay, they're software pirates."
End of story
A group of non-commercial webcasters including American Council on
Education (ACE), Collegiate Broadcasters, Inc. (CBI), Intercolegiate
Broadcasting System (IBS), Harvard Radio Broadcasting (WHRB) and National
Religious Broadcasters Music License Committee (NRBMLC) reached an
agreement over the weekend with the RIAA/SoundExchange on rates and terms
for webcasting.
IBS Announcement
A low fixed price agreement has been reached that also provides for no reporting/recordkeeping for participating IBS Member radio stations/webcasters. The period covered by the agreement is October 1998 through December 31, 2004...
Here's a PDF of the agreement.
Here are the rate specs from the "rates and terms" that were published today:
(1) $200 for the period beginning on October 28, 1998, and ending on
December 31, 1999 (which shall be treated as one year for purposes of
these Rates and Terms);(2) $250 for each of the years 2000 through 2003; and
(3) $500 for 2004, except in the case of an NEE that is, or is affiliated
with, an educational institution with fewer than 10,000 enrolled students,
in which case the minimum fee shall be $250.(b) Other Noncommercial Webcasters Transmitting a Single Channel. Except
as provided in Section 3(c) and subject to Section 4, each Noncommercial
Webcaster that is not an NEE shall pay nonrefundable minimum annual fees
as set forth below for all or any portion of a year in which it made or
makes any digital audio transmissions of sound recordings under the
section 114 statutory license (whether a Broadcaster Simulcast, an
Internet-only transmission or otherwise):(1) $200 for the period beginning on October 28, 1998, and ending on
December 31, 1999 (which shall be treated as one year for purposes of
these Rates and Terms);(2) $250 for 2000;
(3) $300 for 2001, except in the case of a Noncommercial Webcaster
substantially all of the programming of which is reasonably classified as
news, talk, sports or business programming, in which case the minimum fee
shall be $250;(4) $350 for 2002, except in the case of a Noncommercial Webcaster
substantially all of the programming of which is reasonably classified as
news, talk, sports or business programming, in which case the minimum fee
shall be $250;(5) $400 for 2003, except in the case of a Noncommercial Webcaster
substantially all of the programming of which is reasonably classified as
news, talk, sports or business programming, in which case the minimum fee
shall be $250; and(6) $500 for 2004, except in the case of a Noncommercial Webcaster
substantially all of the programming of which is reasonably classified as
news, talk, sports or business programming, in which case the minimum fee
shall be $250.(c) Noncommercial Webcasters Transmitting Multiple Channels.
Notwithstanding Section 3(a) or (b) as applicable, the nonrefundable
minimum annual fee shall be $500 for each year (as identified in Section
3(a)(1) through (3) or 3(b)(1) through (6)) for any Noncommercial
Webcaster that made or makes digital audio transmissions of sound
recordings on more than one channel or station of programming; provided
that -(1) if the digital audio transmissions of sound recordings over any
channels or stations in excess of one consist only of "Incidental
Performances" (as defined in Section 9(f)), the nonrefundable minimum
annual fee shall be as provided in Section 3(a) or (b) as applicable;(2) if substantially all of the programming of all of a Noncommercial
Webcaster's channels and stations is reasonably classified as news, talk,
sports or business programming, the minimum fee shall be $250;
Here is the text of the document in case the link goes bad:
Rates and Terms Available to Certain Noncommercial Webcasters
1. General
(a) Availability of Rates and Terms. The rates and terms set forth herein
(the "Rates and Terms") cover the making of public performances of sound
recordings by means of digital audio transmissions under the statutory
license of 17 U.S.C. 114 by "Noncommercial Webcasters" (as defined in
Section 9(e) hereof), and the reproduction of ephemeral recordings used
solely to facilitate such transmissions under the statutory license of 17
U.S.C. 112(e), during the period beginning on October 28, 1998, and ending
on December 31, 2004. A Noncommercial Webcaster may elect to be subject to
these Rates and Terms, in their entirety, by complying with the procedure
set forth in Section 2 hereof.
(b) Relationship to Other Provisions. Subject to Section 7, any
Noncommercial Webcaster relying upon the statutory licenses set forth in
17 U.S.C. 112 and 114 under these Rates and Terms shall comply with the
requirements of 17 U.S.C. 112 and 114, these Rates and Terms and other
governing provisions established by the Copyright Office. Any terms
determined in accordance with 17 U.S.C. 112 and 114 and applicable to the
collection and distribution by SoundExchange of payments under 17 U.S.C.
112 and 114 from commercial eligible nonsubscription transmission services
(e.g. terms relating to distribution of royalties by SoundExchange,
deductions from distributions, unclaimed funds, possible designation of
successors to SoundExchange in the event of its dissolution, retention of
records, verification, and confidentiality of payment information) shall
apply to payments under these Rates and Terms except to the extent
inconsistent with these Rates and Terms.
(c) Relationship to Other Agreements. These Rates and Terms are without
prejudice to, and subject to, any voluntary agreements that a
Noncommercial Webcaster may have entered into with any sound recording
copyright owner. Should there be any voluntarily negotiated rates and
terms arrived at between copyright owners and webcasters that are adopted
by the Librarian of Congress during 2003 as rates and terms for eligible
nonsubscription transmission services following publication of such rates
and terms in the Federal Register pursuant to 37 C.F.R. Sec. 251.63(b),
any Noncommercial Webcaster that qualifies for such rates may, by written
notice to SoundExchange, elect, for 2004, to pay royalties under the rates
and terms adopted by the Librarian in lieu of the rates and terms
applicable hereunder; provided that if a Noncommercial Webcaster does so,
it shall at the time its first 2004 payment is due under the terms adopted
by the Librarian, pay any additional amount that would have been due under
the rates and terms adopted by the Librarian for the period beginning on
October 28, 1998, and ending on December 31, 2003, in excess of the
royalties previously paid by the Noncommercial Webcaster for that period
under these Rates and Terms.
(d) CARP Proceedings. A Noncommercial Webcaster that elects to be subject
to these Rates and Terms agrees that it has elected these terms in lieu of
participating in a copyright arbitration royalty panel ("CARP") proceeding
to set rates for the 2003-2004 period and in lieu of any different rates
and terms that may be determined through such a CARP proceeding. Thus,
once a Noncommercial Webcaster has elected these Rates and Terms, it shall
refrain from participating in any such CARP proceeding and can opt out of
these Rates and Terms only as provided in Section 1(c).
2. Election for Treatment as a Noncommercial Webcaster
(a) Election Process. A Noncommercial Webcaster that wishes to elect to be
subject to these Rates and Terms in lieu of any other royalty rates and
terms that otherwise might apply under 17 U.S.C. 112 and 114 for the
period beginning on October 28, 1998, and ending on December 31, 2004,
shall submit to SoundExchange a completed and signed election form
(available on the SoundExchange Web site at http://www.soundexchange.com)
by no later than the date 30 days after publication of these Rates and
Terms in the Federal Register. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence-
(1) if a Noncommercial Webcaster has not previously made digital audio
transmissions of sound recordings under the section 114 statutory license,
the Noncommercial Webcaster may make its election by no later than the
first date on which it would be obligated under these Rates and Terms to
make a royalty payment for the use of sound recordings under the section
112 or 114 statutory license; and
(2) an "NEE" (as defined in Section 9(d)) may make its election by no
later than October 15, 2003.
(b) Effect of Election or Nonelection. A Noncommercial Webcaster that
fails to make a timely election shall pay royalties as otherwise provided
under 17 U.S.C. 112 and 114 (the "Statutory Rate"). Subject to Section
1(c), if a Noncommercial Webcaster timely elects to be covered by these
Rates and Terms, the Noncommercial Webcaster shall thereafter be obligated
to pay royalties under and comply with the provisions of these Rates and
Terms through December 31, 2004, provided that such Noncommercial
Webcaster continues to meet the conditions for eligibility as a
Noncommercial Webcaster, as set forth in 17 U.S.C. 114(f)(5)(E)(i) (as
added by the Small Webcaster Settlement Act of 2002).
(c) Proof of Eligibility. A Noncommercial Webcaster that makes an election
pursuant to Section 2(a) shall make available to SoundExchange, within 30
days after SoundExchange's written request at any time during the 3 years
following such election, sufficient evidence to support its eligibility as
a Noncommercial Webcaster and, if applicable, as an NEE. Any proof of
eligibility provided hereunder shall be provided with a certification
signed by the chief executive officer of the Noncommercial Webcaster, or
other person with similar management authority over the Noncommercial
Webcaster, certifying that the information provided is accurate and the
person signing is authorized to act on behalf of the Noncommercial
Webcaster.
3. Minimum Annual Fees
(a) NEEs Transmitting a Single Channel. Except as provided in Section 3(c)
and subject to Section 4, each NEE shall pay nonrefundable minimum annual
fees as set forth below for all or any portion of a year in which it made
or makes any digital audio transmissions of sound recordings under the
section 114 statutory license (whether a "Broadcaster Simulcast" (as
defined in Section 9(b)), an Internet-only transmission or otherwise):
(1) $200 for the period beginning on October 28, 1998, and ending on
December 31, 1999 (which shall be treated as one year for purposes of
these Rates and Terms);
(2) $250 for each of the years 2000 through 2003; and
(3) $500 for 2004, except in the case of an NEE that is, or is affiliated
with, an educational institution with fewer than 10,000 enrolled students,
in which case the minimum fee shall be $250.
(b) Other Noncommercial Webcasters Transmitting a Single Channel. Except
as provided in Section 3(c) and subject to Section 4, each Noncommercial
Webcaster that is not an NEE shall pay nonrefundable minimum annual fees
as set forth below for all or any portion of a year in which it made or
makes any digital audio transmissions of sound recordings under the
section 114 statutory license (whether a Broadcaster Simulcast, an
Internet-only transmission or otherwise):
(1) $200 for the period beginning on October 28, 1998, and ending on
December 31, 1999 (which shall be treated as one year for purposes of
these Rates and Terms);
(2) $250 for 2000;
(3) $300 for 2001, except in the case of a Noncommercial Webcaster
substantially all of the programming of which is reasonably classified as
news, talk, sports or business programming, in which case the minimum fee
shall be $250;
(4) $350 for 2002, except in the case of a Noncommercial Webcaster
substantially all of the programming of which is reasonably classified as
news, talk, sports or business programming, in which case the minimum fee
shall be $250;
(5) $400 for 2003, except in the case of a Noncommercial Webcaster
substantially all of the programming of which is reasonably classified as
news, talk, sports or business programming, in which case the minimum fee
shall be $250; and
(6) $500 for 2004, except in the case of a Noncommercial Webcaster
substantially all of the programming of which is reasonably classified as
news, talk, sports or business programming, in which case the minimum fee
shall be $250.
(c) Noncommercial Webcasters Transmitting Multiple Channels.
Notwithstanding Section 3(a) or (b) as applicable, the nonrefundable
minimum annual fee shall be $500 for each year (as identified in Section
3(a)(1) through (3) or 3(b)(1) through (6)) for any Noncommercial
Webcaster that made or makes digital audio transmissions of sound
recordings on more than one channel or station of programming; provided
that -
(1) if the digital audio transmissions of sound recordings over any
channels or stations in excess of one consist only of "Incidental
Performances" (as defined in Section 9(f)), the nonrefundable minimum
annual fee shall be as provided in Section 3(a) or (b) as applicable;
(2) if substantially all of the programming of all of a Noncommercial
Webcaster's channels and stations is reasonably classified as news, talk,
sports or business programming, the minimum fee shall be $250;
(3) if a Noncommercial Webcaster that owns or operates multiple
over-the-air terrestrial AM or FM radio stations offers more than one
Internet channel or station on which substantially all of the programming
consists of Broadcaster Simulcasts, then -
(A) a nonrefundable minimum annual fee otherwise determined in accordance
with this Section 3(c) shall extend to only three such Internet channels
or stations offering Broadcaster Simulcasts, as well as associated
Internet-only channels (subject to Section 5);
(B) additional nonrefundable minimum annual fees shall be payable under
this Section 3(c) for additional groups of up to three Internet channels
or stations offering Broadcaster Simulcasts, as well as associated
Internet-only channels (subject to Section 5);
(C) each such group of up to three such Internet channels or stations, as
well as associated Internet-only channels (subject to Section 5), shall be
treated as a separate Noncommercial Webcaster for purposes of Sections
3(c)(2), 4 and 5;
(D) all such channels or stations offering Broadcaster Simulcasts in a
group shall be treated as a single channel or station for purposes of
Section 5;
(E) any additional channels or stations considered with the group for
purposes of Section 5 shall also be considered with the group for purposes
of Section 4; and
(F) accordingly, the Noncommercial Webcaster may offer two additional
Internet-only channels or stations with each group of up to three channels
or stations offering Broadcaster Simulcasts without triggering payments
under Section 5(b), but all of such channels or stations (up to a total of
five) shall be considered together for purposes of determining whether the
Noncommercial Webcaster exceeds the 146,000 Aggregate Tuning Hour
threshold in Section 4; and
(4) for purposes of determining the number of channels or stations of
programming offered by a Noncommercial Webcaster, an "archived program"
(as defined in 17 U.S.C. 114(j)(2)) that complies with the conditions in
17 U.S.C. 114(d)(2)(C)(iii)(I) and (II) shall not be considered a separate
channel or station of programming except in the case of a Noncommercial
Webcaster that exclusively makes digital audio transmissions of archived
programming.
(d) Payment in Lieu of Providing Reports of Use. All Noncommercial
Webcasters' payments of nonrefundable minimum annual fees for each of 2003
and 2004 shall be accompanied by an additional payment of $50 in 2003 and
$25 in 2004 in lieu of the provision of reports of use of sound
recordings, as described in Section 7.
4. Usage Fees for 2004
(a) In General. Subject to Section 5, the nonrefundable minimum annual fee
payable under Section 3 for 2004 shall constitute full payment for digital
audio transmissions totaling not more than 146,000 "Aggregate Tuning
Hours" (as defined in Section 9(a)) per month. If, in any month during
2004, a Noncommercial Webcaster makes digital audio transmissions of sound
recordings under the section 114 statutory license in excess of 146,000
Aggregate Tuning Hours, the Noncommercial Webcaster shall pay additional
royalties for those digital audio transmissions in excess of 146,000
Aggregate Tuning Hours at the following rates, subject to an election as
provided in Section 4(b):
(1) $0.0002176 (.02176˘) per "Performance" (as defined in Section 9(f));
or
(2) $.00251 (.251˘) per "Aggregate Tuning Hour," except in the case of
channels or stations where substantially all of the programming is
reasonably classified as news, talk, sports or business programming, in
which case the royalty rate shall be $.0002 (.02˘) per Aggregate Tuning
Hour.
For the avoidance of doubt, a Noncommercial Webcaster shall calculate its
Aggregate Tuning Hours of digital audio transmissions each month and shall
pay any additional royalties owed for such month as provided above in this
Section 4(a), but the Noncommercial Webcaster shall not owe any additional
royalties for any subsequent months until such time as the Noncommercial
Webcaster again exceeds the 146,000 Aggregate Tuning Hour threshold during
a given month.
(b) Election of Per Performance or Aggregate Tuning Hour Rate. The first
time a Noncommercial Webcaster is required to pay additional royalties
under Section 4(a), the Noncommercial Webcaster shall elect to pay based
on the per performance royalty set forth in Section 4(a)(1) or the
aggregate tuning hour royalty set forth in Section 4(a)(2) for all
additional royalties under Section 4(a) incurred during the remainder of
2004, if any. Thus, for example, a Noncommercial Webcaster may not in one
month when its digital audio transmissions exceed 146,000 Aggregate Tuning
Hours calculate its additional royalties based on the per performance
royalty and in another month when its digital audio transmissions exceed
146,000 Aggregate Tuning Hours calculate its additional royalties based on
the aggregate tuning hour royalty.
(c) Reporting. For 2004, each Noncommercial Webcaster making digital audio
transmissions in excess of 146,000 Aggregate Tuning Hours in any month
shall report its Aggregate Tuning Hours of digital audio transmissions to
SoundExchange in its monthly statement of account under Section 6(d). Each
Noncommercial Webcaster having a statutory license in 2004 and not making
digital audio transmissions in excess of 146,000 Aggregate Tuning Hours in
any month shall so certify in the statement of account accompanying its
first payment in 2005, if any.
5. Fees for More Than Three Channels of Programming
Subject to Section 3(c)(3), if in any year (as identified in Section
3(a)(1) through (3) or 3(b)(1) through (6)), a Noncommercial Webcaster
made or makes digital audio transmissions of sound recordings on more than
three channels or stations of programming, then -
(a) the Noncommercial Webcaster shall by written notice to SoundExchange
at the time of its first payment for the year or its inception of its
first channel or station in excess of three, whichever is later, designate
three channels or stations for which the nonrefundable minimum annual fee
payable under Section 3, and in 2004, any additional royalty payment under
Section 4, shall constitute full payment; and
(b) the Noncommercial Webcaster shall pay royalties for all its digital
audio transmissions of sound recordings under the section 114 statutory
license over its other channels and stations at the Statutory Rate for
digital audio transmissions made by commercial eligible nonsubscription
transmission services at such time, provided that -
(1) the Noncommercial Webcaster shall not be required to make any minimum
payment that otherwise applies to commercial eligible nonsubscription
transmission services;
(2) the nonrefundable minimum annual fee payable under Section 3 shall not
be creditable toward such payments for its other channels and stations;
(3) such payments for its other channels and stations shall be due at the
times provided in Section 6 (rather than any different times otherwise
applicable to commercial eligible nonsubscription transmission services),
except that if the Statutory Rate for digital audio transmissions made by
commercial eligible nonsubscription transmission services has not then
been determined, such payments for its other channels and stations shall
be due 45 days following the month in which the Statutory Rate is
determined; and
(4) the Noncommercial Webcaster shall comply with other terms relating to
royalty payments that otherwise apply to commercial eligible
nonsubscription transmission services (e.g. terms concerning any election
among payment options).
For the avoidance of doubt, by operation of Section 3(c)(3), when a
Noncommercial Webcaster that owns or operates multiple over-the-air
terrestrial AM or FM radio stations offers more than one Internet channel
or station on which substantially all of the programming consists of
Broadcaster Simulcasts: (i) such Broadcaster Simulcasts shall in no event
be subject to the Statutory Rate for digital audio transmissions made by
commercial eligible nonsubscription transmission services, and (ii) only
programming offered on Internet-only channels or stations in excess of two
that may be associated with a group of up to three channels or stations
offering Broadcaster Simulcasts may be subject to that Statutory Rate as
provided in this Section.
6. Payment of Royalties in General
(a) Timing of Minimum Payments. Payments of nonrefundable minimum annual
fees under Section 3 for the period beginning on October 28, 1998, and
ending on December 31, 2003, shall be due by October 15, 2003.
Nonrefundable minimum annual fees for 2004 shall be due by January 31,
2004. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section 6(a), when
a Noncommercial Webcaster has not previously made digital audio
transmissions of sound recordings under the section 114 statutory license,
the Noncommercial Webcaster may make its first payment of nonrefundable
minimum annual fees within 45 days following the month in which the
Noncommercial Webcaster commences digital audio transmissions of sound
recordings under the section 114 statutory license.
(b) Timing of Other Payments. Any payments due under Section 4 or 5 shall
be due 45 days following the month in which the liability accrues.
(c) Credit. Any payments of section 112 or 114 statutory license royalties
made by a Noncommercial Webcaster to SoundExchange prior to its election
under Section 2 shall be creditable to the payments due under Sections 3
through 5 of these Rates and Terms.
(d) Remittance. Payments of all amounts due under these Rates and Terms
shall be made to SoundExchange and shall under no circumstances be
refundable. Payments shall be accompanied by a statement of account in the
form made available on the SoundExchange Web site located at
http://www.soundexchange.com.
(e) Ephemeral Recordings. The royalty payable under 17 U.S.C. 112(e) for
any reproduction of a phonorecord made during the period beginning on
October 28, 1998, and ending on December 31, 2004, and used solely by a
Noncommercial Webcaster to facilitate transmissions for which it pays
royalties as and when provided in these Rates and Terms shall be deemed to
be included within, and to comprise 8.8% percent of, the Noncommercial
Webcaster's royalty payments under these Rates and Terms.
(f) Continuing Obligation to Pay. If Statutory Rates and terms for
Noncommercial Webcasters for the period beginning January 1, 2005 have not
been established by December 31, 2004, then Noncommercial Webcasters shall
continue to make payments at the 2004 rates under these Rates and Terms
until such successor rates and terms are established. Such interim
royalties shall be subject to retroactive adjustment based on the final
successor rates. Any overpayment shall be fully creditable to future
payments, and any underpayment shall be paid within thirty days after
establishment of the successor rates and terms, except as may otherwise be
provided in the successor terms.
(g) Late Payments. A Noncommercial Webcaster shall pay a late fee of
0.75% per month, or the highest lawful rate, whichever is lower, for any
payment received by SoundExchange after the due date. Late fees shall
accrue from the due date until payment is received by SoundExchange.
7. Notice and Recordkeeping
(a) Data for Distributions. Noncommercial Webcasters electing these Rates
and Terms shall not be required to provide reports of use of sound
recordings for 2003 and 2004, even if the Librarian of Congress issues
regulations otherwise requiring such reports by Noncommercial Webcasters.
The payments required by Section 3(d) are intended to facilitate
SoundExchange's ability to collect or otherwise acquire substitute data on
which to base distributions to copyright owners and performers of payments
made by Noncommercial Webcasters, although SoundExchange shall be under no
obligation to spend such payments in any particular way or to collect or
otherwise acquire any particular data by any particular means.
SoundExchange may base its distributions to copyright owners and
performers of payments made by Noncommercial Webcasters on any data or
methodology determined by its board.
(b) Future Reporting. The Noncommercial Webcasters shall designate a task
force of not less than five members that shall be obligated to use
reasonable efforts to work with SoundExchange to determine data fields and
report formats and recommend policies, procedures and systems for the
delivery of electronic reports of use of sound recordings to SoundExchange
sufficient to permit SoundExchange, beginning in 2005, to distribute the
royalties paid by Noncommercial Webcasters to those copyright owners and
performers whose sound recordings are used by Noncommercial Webcasters
based on data reported by or on behalf of Noncommercial Webcasters. In the
absence of agreement among the Noncommercial Webcasters concerning the
membership of such task force, each Noncommercial Webcaster shall be
obligated to use reasonable efforts to do the foregoing.
8. Default
A Noncommercial Webcaster shall comply with all the requirements of these
Rates and Terms. If it fails to do so, SoundExchange may give written
notice to the Noncommercial Webcaster that, unless the breach is remedied
within thirty days from the date of notice and not repeated, the
Noncommercial Webcaster's authorization to make public performances and
ephemeral reproductions under these Rates and Terms will be automatically
terminated. Such termination renders any public performances and ephemeral
reproductions as to which the breach relates actionable as acts of
infringement under 17 U.S.C. 501 and fully subject to the remedies
provided by 17 U.S.C. 502-506 and 509.
9. Definitions
As used in these Rates and Terms, the following terms shall have the
following meanings:
(a) The term "Aggregate Tuning Hours" means the total hours of programming
that a Noncommercial Webcaster has transmitted during the relevant period
to all listeners within the United States over the relevant channels or
stations, and from any archived programs, that provide audio programming
consisting, in whole or in part, of eligible nonsubscription
transmissions, less the actual running time of any sound recordings for
which the Noncommercial Webcaster has obtained direct licenses apart from
17 U.S.C. 114(d)(2) or which do not require a license under United States
copyright law. By way of example, if a Noncommercial Webcaster transmitted
one hour of programming to 10 simultaneous listeners, the Noncommercial
Webcaster's Aggregate Tuning Hours would equal 10. If three minutes of
that hour consisted of transmission of a directly licensed recording, the
Noncommercial Webcaster's Aggregate Tuning Hours would equal 9 hours and
30 minutes. As an additional example, if one listener listened to a
Noncommercial Webcaster for 10 hours (and none of the recordings
transmitted during that time was directly licensed), the Noncommercial
Webcaster's Aggregate Tuning Hours would equal 10.
(b) A "Broadcaster Simulcast" is a simultaneous Internet transmission or
retransmission of an over-the-air terrestrial AM or FM radio broadcast,
including one with previously broadcast programming substituted for
programming for which requisite licenses or clearances to transmit over
the Internet have not been obtained and one with substitute
advertisements, where such Internet transmission or retransmission is made
by a Noncommercial Webcaster that owns or operates the over-the-air radio
station making the AM or FM broadcast.
(c) An "Incidental Performance" is a Performance that both:
(1) makes no more than incidental use of sound recordings including, but
not limited to, brief musical transitions in and out of commercials or
program segments, brief performances during news, talk, sports and
business programming, brief background performances during disk jockey
announcements, brief performances during commercials of sixty seconds or
less in duration, or brief performances during sporting or other public
events; and
(2) other than ambient music that is background at a public event, does
not contain an entire sound recording and does not feature a particular
sound recording of more than thirty seconds (as a sound recording used as
a theme song is featured).
(d) An "NEE" or "Noncommercial Educational Entity" is a Noncommercial
Webcaster that is directly operated by, or is affiliated with and
officially sanctioned by, and the digital audio transmission operations of
which are, during the course of the year, staffed substantially by
students enrolled at, a domestically accredited primary or secondary
school, college, university or other post-secondary degree-granting
educational institution, but that is not a "public broadcasting entity"
(as defined in 17 U.S.C. 118(g)) qualified to receive funding from the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting pursuant to the criteria set forth in
47 U.S.C. 396.
(e) The term "Noncommercial Webcaster" shall have the meaning given in 17
U.S.C. 114(f)(5)(E)(i) (as added by the Small Webcaster Settlement Act of
2002).
(f) A "Performance" is each instance in which any portion of a sound
recording is publicly performed to a listener by means of a digital audio
transmission or retransmission (e.g., the delivery of any portion of a
single track from a compact disc to one listener) but excluding the
following:
(1) a performance of a sound recording that does not require a license
(e.g., the sound recording is not copyrighted);
(2) a performance of a sound recording for which the Noncommercial
Webcaster has previously obtained a license from the copyright owner of
such sound recording; and
(3) an Incidental Performance.
I've put together a montage of the different chants over the course of the evening.
Yeah, we're a bunch of hippies. A bunch of pissed off, angry hippies. (Wanna make something of it?)
But we also represent a lot of pissed off non-hippies all across the country. We're speaking out for "average citizens" across the U.S. everywhere.
Note that I've made an uncompressed AIFF file of this available for sampling purposes.
SF Chant Montage (Small - 5 MB)
SF Chant Montage (Hi-Res - 52 MB)
Audio - SF Chant Montage (MP3 - 2 MB)
Audio - SF Chant Montage (Uncompressed AIFF - 10 MB)
This work is dedicated to the
Public Domain. (Take it and run, baby!)
Okay I guess I have to make a few phone calls before I get to my homework this morning.
The ACLU has just released the following Alerts:
From: Matt Howes, National Internet Organizer, ACLU To: ACLU Action Network Members Date: April 7, 2003Oppose the Culture War on Raves
Members of both the House and Senate are attempting to pervert proper legislative processes by appending two unrelated provisions to the popular Amber Alert measure. One of the two provisions would target raves -- a social event that mixes electronic music, light shows and dancing; the other provision would seek to limit the discretion of federal judges.
The rave provision would make building owners liable for their tenants' and customers' activities. For example, even if they instituted excellent security precautions, restaurant, bar, nightclub, dance and music venue owners could all be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars and forced into bankruptcy if a customer sneaked in drugs. No matter how much security is put in place, they could be held responsible for the actions of just one customer.
The federal sentencing provision would require the Justice Department to report to Congress every time federal judges use their discretion to impose a lower sentence than recommended under federal sentencing guidelines. This would intimidate judges and prevent them from using their judgement when handing down sentences.
These anti-civil liberties amendments should have full legislative review and not be allowed to piggyback on more popular, yet unrelated, legislation.
Take Action! Click here for more information and to urge proper legislative process for these provisions:
http://www.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/DrugPolicy.cfm?ID=12280&c=185
and
*** EMERGENCY - JOE BIDEN TRYING TO SNEAK RAVE ACT INTO S151 Conference *** CALL YOUR SENATOR NOWSenator Joe Biden (D-DE) is at this very moment attempting to sneak
the RAVE Act into conference committee on the National AMBER Alert
Network Act of 2003 (S151). S151 is a popular bill about child
abduction and has nothing to do with drug issues. S151 has already
been passed by the Senate and House and is now in Conference. In
contrast, the RAVE Act has not passed even one single committee this
year. It did pass a committee last year, but was so controversial
two Senators withdrew their sponsorship after the vote.This means that if the RAVE Act passes the conference committee, it
is likely to become law without ever having a hearing, a debate or a
vote. Drug Policy Alliance has been told that Senator Biden has told
other conference committee members, incorrectly, that the ACLU is no
longer in opposition to the action. He also has told conferees that
nightclub owners now support him (on the basis of one group that
switched sides). If the act makes it into the conference language it
is likely to become law. It must be stopped now.PHONE YOUR SENATORS and Conference Committee Members (Background
information below). DO IT NOW. If you do not respond to this alert,
the controversial RAVE Act is likely to become law and it will be
much harder to fix.ACTIONS TO TAKE:
1. The following Members of Congress are on the conference
committee. They need to hear from you IF AND ONLY IF you live in
their district. Please be polite. Just tell them that you oppose
the RAVE Act, that it is controversial and it should not be included
in the conference language of S151. Don't stay on the phone long.
Ask as many people as you can to call them.HOUSE:
James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) - 202/225-5101
Howard Coble (R-NC) - 202/225-3065
Lamar Smith (R-TX) - 202/225-4236
Mark Green (R-WI)- 202/225-5665
Melissa Hart (R-PA)- 202/225-2565
John Conyers (D-MI) - 202/225-5126
Bobby Scott (D-VA) - - 202/225-8351SENATE:
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) - 202/224-5251
Charles Grassley (R-IA) - 202/224-3744
Jeff Sessions (R-AL) - 202/224-4124
Lindsey Graham (R-SC) - 202/224-5972
Patrick Leahy (D-VT) - 202/224-4242
Ted Kennedy (D-MA) - 202/224-4543
Joseph Biden (D-DE) - 202/224-50422. Everyone in the U.S. - You have two Senators who can weigh in on
this issue with the conferees. A list of your Senators by state can
be found at
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.
Please call your Senators at the Capitol Switchboard at 202/224-3121 -
please tell them that the RAVE Act is very controversial. Senator
Biden is holding up the AMBER Act by placing controversial bill in
conference. Urge them to oppose the RAVE Act by contacting the
Senate conferees and asking them to leave it off the measure so that
there will at least be a hearing on this issue.BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Congress is considering two pieces of legislation that could create
disincentives for club owners to have water, ambulances and
paramedics available at large dance events. The bills might also
threaten live music and dancing. If enacted, either bill could
prevent you from hearing your favorite band or DJ live. Every musical
style would be affected, including rock and roll, Hip Hop, country,
and electronic music. The proposed laws could also shut down hemp
festivals, circuit parties, and other events government officials
don't like. Both bills would allow overzealous prosecutors to send
innocent people to jail for the crimes of others.The two bills are the RAVE Act (H.R. 718) and the CLEAN-UP Act (H.R.
834). The RAVE Act was first introduced last year in the Senate by
Senator Joe Biden (D-DE). A House version was introduced by Rep.
Lamar Smith (R-TX). Thanks to the support of thousands of voters like
you, Drug Policy Alliance and a coalition of friends and activists
around the country was able to stop both bills last year.
Unfortunately, supporters of the RAVE Act are even more determined to
pass it this year. Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC) is sponsoring a new RAVE
Act in the House. Additionally, Senator Biden has introduced a Senate
version entitled the Illicit Drugs Anti-Proliferation Act.If enacted, the RAVE Act would make it easier for the federal
government to punish property owners for any drug offense that their
customers commit - even if they work hard to stop such offenses. If
enacted, nightclub and stadium owners would likely stop holding
events - such as rock or Hip Hop concerts - in which even one person
might use drugs.The CLEAN-UP Act was also first introduced last year, but it failed
to make it out of committee. This year's bill has over 60 co-sponsors
and could become law without your help. Sponsored by Rep. Doug Ose (R-
CA), the Clean, Learn, Educate, Abolish, and Undermine Production
(CLEAN-UP) of Methamphetamines Act is largely an innocuous bill that
provides more money and training for the clean up of illegal
methamphetamine lab. Hidden within the bill, however, is a draconian
section that could make dancing and live music federal crimes.Section 305 of the CLEAN-UP Act stipulates that:
`Whoever, for a commercial purpose, knowingly promotes any rave,
dance, music, or other entertainment event, that takes place under
circumstances where the promoter knows or reasonably ought to know
that a controlled substance will be used or distributed in violation
of Federal law or the law of the place where the event is held, shall
be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not
more than 9 years, or both.'This provision will allow any concert promoter, event organizer,
nightclub owner and arena or stadium owner to be fined and jailed,
since a reasonable person would know some people use drugs at musical
events.Under both the RAVE Act and the CLEAN-UP Act, it doesn't matter if
the event promoter and property owner try to prevent people from
using drugs. Nor does it matter if the vast majority of people
attending the event are law-abiding citizens that want to listen to
music not do drugs. If enacted, either bill could be used to shut
down raves, circuit parties, marijuana rallies, unpopular music
concerts, and any other event federal officials don't like.++++++++++++++++++++++++You received this message because
antikoas@aol.com is a member of the mailing list originating
from alerts@actioncenter.drugpolicy.org.Please visit
http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.ctsg.com/managesubscription.asp to
learn about other lists you can subscribe to, or to unsubscribe from
individual or all lists.For problems, please contact Jeanette Irwin at jirwin@drugpolicy.org .
Please join the Drug Policy Alliance:
http://www.drugpolicy.org/join
Drop Bush Not Bombs
Digital Cutup Lounge = Stephen and John von Seggern.
The duo has a great weblog too.
1. The anti-war movement supports our troops by urging that they be brought home immediately so they neither kill nor get killed in a unjust war. How has the Bush administration shown its support for our troops?a. The Republican-controlled House Budget Committee voted to cut $25 billion in veterans benefits over the next 10 years.
b. The Bush administration proposed cutting $172 million from impact aid programs which provide school funding for children of military personnel.
c. The administration ordered the Dept. of Veterans Affairs to stop publicizing health benefits available to veterans.
d. All of the above.
AFTRA RALLY AGAINST CLEAR CHANNEL March 27 12:30 P.M. - 2 P.M.(Clear Channel is an organizer of pro war rallies;
sent a memo to their 1000+ stations suggesting they
NOT play John Lennon's "Imagine" and a multitude of
other songs right after 9/11; has links to Bush
Administration; and also are accused of unfair
practices by artists touring who, in order to get
airplay on their stations in certain markets, must use
Clear Channel promoters.)* * *
original call from AFTRA:
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists
March 2003AFTRA
New York
LocalAFTRA RALLY
at BRYANT PARK,
Thursday, MARCH 27th at 12:30 PMClear Channel Communications,
the owner of WKTU, WLTW, WAXQ, WWPR, and WHTZ,
wants the right to fire DJs and replace them with
cheaper, out-of-state announcers who pre-record shows
through a process called "voice-tracking."Clear Channel Communications wants to take the
hometown voices out of New York City radio.
COME TO THE RALLY TO
SUPPORT AND MEET
THE DJs YOU LISTEN TO EVERYDAY!
Bryant Park
42nd Street and 6th Avenue at the Fountain
Thursday, March 27th
12:30 pm - 2:00 pm
For more information contact:
Broadcast Department,
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists,
New York Localwww.keepnyradiolive.com
(212) 532-0800It is a fight we are in together.
I was wondering who was going to be the first popular musical act to write a song taking a stand against the war. Turns out it's one of my favorites!
Thanks guys! I love you for this.
Now we all have to start calling radio stations to demand
request that they play this song!
Check out the lyrics!
Mirrors, smokescreens and lies
It’s not the politicians but their actions I despise
You and Saddam should kick it like back in the day
With the cocaine and Courvoisier
But you build more bombs as you get more bold
As your mid-life crisis war unfolds
All you want to do is take control
Now put that axis of evil bullshit on hold
Citizen rule number 2080
Politicians are shady
So people watch your back 'cause I think they smoke crack
I don’t doubt it look at how they act...It’s time to lead the way and de-escalate
Lose the weapons of mass destruction and the hate
Say ooh ah what’s the White House doin’?
Oh no! Say, what in tarnation have they got brewing??!!!!???!!
Well I’m not pro Bush and I’m not pro Saddam
We need these fools to remain calm
George Bush you’re looking like Zoolander
Trying to play tough for the camera
What am I on crazy pills? We’ve got to stop it
Get your hand out my grandma’s pocket
We need health care more than going to war
You think it’s democracy they’re fighting for?
Here is the full text of the lyrics at:
http://beastieboys.com/song_lyrics.html
In a World Gone Mad
In a world gone mad it’s hard to think right
So much violence hate and spite
Murder going on all day and night
Due time we fight the non-violent fight
Mirrors, smokescreens and lies
It’s not the politicians but their actions I despise
You and Saddam should kick it like back in the day
With the cocaine and Courvoisier
But you build more bombs as you get more bold
As your mid-life crisis war unfolds
All you want to do is take control
Now put that axis of evil bullshit on hold
Citizen rule number 2080
Politicians are shady
So people watch your back 'cause I think they smoke crack
I don’t doubt it look at how they act
In a world gone mad it’s hard to think right
So much violence hate and spite
Murder going on all day and night
Due time we fight the non-violent fight
First the ‘War On Terror’ now war on Iraq
We’re reaching a point where we can’t turn back
Let’s lose the guns and let’s lose the bombs
And stop the corporate contributions that their built upon
Well I’ll be sleeping on your speeches ‘til I start to snore
‘Cause I won’t carry guns for an oil war
As-Salamu alaikum, wa alaikum assalam
Peace to the Middle East peace to Islam
Now don’t get us wrong ‘cause we love America
But that’s no reason to get hysterica
They’re layin’ on the syrup thick
We ain’t waffles we ain’t havin’ it
In a world gone mad it’s hard to think right
So much violence hate and spite
Murder going on all day and night
Due time we fight the non-violent fight
Now how many people must get killed?
For oil families pockets to get filled?
How many oil families get killed?
Not a damn one so what’s the deal?
It’s time to lead the way and de-escalate
Lose the weapons of mass destruction and the hate
Say ooh ah what’s the White House doin’?
Oh no! Say, what in tarnation have they got brewing??!!!!???!!
Well I’m not pro Bush and I’m not pro Saddam
We need these fools to remain calm
George Bush you’re looking like Zoolander
Trying to play tough for the camera
What am I on crazy pills? We’ve got to stop it
Get your hand out my grandma’s pocket
We need health care more than going to war
You think it’s democracy they’re fighting for?
In a world gone mad it’s hard to think right
So much violence hate and spite
Murder going on all day and night
Due time we fight the non-violent fight
I'm not sure who the DJ's were, but they totally rocked. The music fades in over the sound of the speaker on stage and then takes over...
Audio - DJ Mix On Polk/Grove (MP3 - 5 MB)
DJ Mix On Polk/Grove (Hi-res 66 MB)
DJ Mix On Polk/Grove - All (Lo-res 27 MB)
DJ Mix On Polk/Grove - Part 1 of 2 (Lo-res 12 MB)
DJ Mix On Polk/Grove - Part 2 of 2 (Lo-res 15 MB)
From the "we say 'rip mix burn' but we don't really mean it" department.
It's like Apple saying "when we gave you a telephone connectivity kit, we thought you were only going to call these kinds of people on these kinds of phones -- not these other people. Why would you want to use a phone to talk to them? We only wanted you to talk to these kinds of people who are using these kinds of our phones (which we would also like you to buy please)."
"Don't you see. Although it feels like you're using your phone to talk to who you want and get the information you need, you're talking to the wrong people on the wrong kinds of phones (although we also manufacture and distribute the phones you'd like to converse with)."
"Look we have our reasons, ok? So you'd better just give your phone-making kit back! And don't try anything funny -- like making your own phone kit.
We'll tell you who to talk to and what for from this point on. Got it buddy?"
Here Apple -- now you can put this in your pipe and smoke it:
Developer to revive iTunes file-sharing
By Matthew Broersma, Special to CNET News.com.
The developer of a peer-to-peer file-sharing plug-in for
Apple Computer's iTunes music application has decided
to give the software a new lease on life, after it was put
out of commission by the computer maker's lawyers
earlier this month.Two weeks ago, Apple ordered developer James Speth
to return his iTunes software developer kit and to stop
distributing the iCommune plug-in for iTunes. The plug-in
allowed iTunes to play or download music from other Macs
via a network or Internet connection, potentially giving
the music player a peer-to-peer feature.In a recent message sent to iCommune users, Speth
said that he will honor, Apple's request to stop
distributing his software, but he will build the same
features into a standalone application. The next
version of iCommune will work with iTunes and
potentially other digital music players and will use
Rendezvous, Apple's implementation of a protocol
for automatic discovery of network-connected devices.Speth also said that the new version will be open
source under the General Public License, the
same license used by the GNU/Linux operating system.
Open-source software can be freely modified and
redistributed, as long as the modified code is
returned to the community...Apple itself has publicly demonstrated the use
of Rendezvous to allow iTunes to access other
\playlists across a network, but has given no
indication of when such a version of iTunes
might appear. The current version 3 of the
program shares playlists with other version 3
"iLife" applications, such as iMovie, iDVD and iCal.ICommune differs from Apple's concept, however,
in that it enables music downloads. Services such
as Napster, Aimster, Morpheus and Kazaa have
incurred the legal wrath of the music industry for
enabling users to trade song files, which record
companies say has resulted in mass piracy and
declining CD sales.However, Apple has said that legal fears played
no part in its decision to pull the plug on iCommune.
The proprietary iTunes software developer kit used by
Speth was intended only for making iTunes connect
to hardware devices, not to other Macs, according to Apple.
Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
Developer to revive iTunes file-sharing
By Matthew Broersma
Special to CNET News.com
January 28, 2003, 11:09 AM PT
http://news.com.com/2100-1040-982441.html
The developer of a peer-to-peer file-sharing plug-in for Apple Computer's
iTunes music application has decided to give the software a new lease on life,
after it was put out of commission by the computer maker's lawyers earlier this
month.
Two weeks ago, Apple ordered developer James Speth to return his iTunes
software developer kit and to stop distributing the iCommune plug-in for
iTunes. The plug-in allowed iTunes to play or download music from other Macs
via a network or Internet connection, potentially giving the music player a
peer-to-peer feature.
In a recent message sent to iCommune users, Speth said that he will honor
Apple's request to stop distributing his software, but he will build the same
features into a standalone application. The next version of iCommune will work
with iTunes and potentially other digital music players and will use
Rendezvous, Apple's implementation of a protocol for automatic discovery of
network-connected devices.
Speth also said that the new version will be open source under the General
Public License, the same license used by the GNU/Linux operating system.
Open-source software can be freely modified and redistributed, as long as the
modified code is returned to the community.
"I'm going to get the basics of the next version done, then get it out the
door, with source. Hopefully, from there it will take on a life of its own and
get even better," Speth said in the message.
Apple itself has publicly demonstrated the use of Rendezvous to allow iTunes to
access other playlists across a network, but has given no indication of when
such a version of iTunes might appear. The current version 3 of the program
shares playlists with other version 3 "iLife" applications, such as iMovie,
iDVD and iCal.
ICommune differs from Apple's concept, however, in that it enables music
downloads. Services such as Napster, Aimster, Morpheus and Kazaa have incurred
the legal wrath of the music industry for enabling users to trade song files,
which record companies say has resulted in mass piracy and declining CD sales.
However, Apple has said that legal fears played no part in its decision to pull
the plug on iCommune. The proprietary iTunes software developer kit used by
Speth was intended only for making iTunes connect to hardware devices, not to
other Macs, according to Apple.
ZDNet U.K.'s Matthew Broersma reported from London .
MusicBrainz' Robert Kaye is mouthing off again. (And making sense, as usual.)
The bottom line is that Ogg Vorbis is the only format we can really trust to be patent and royalty-free.
What exactly can we expect from an open platform? Does that mean that they will offer Ogg/Vorbis downloads? Ogg/Vorbis is just about the only truly free codec that is available -- everything else is encumbered by patents or other crazy royalty schemes.Even classic MP3 doesn't fit this anymore since FHG/Thomson have started collecting royalties. So, Echo, if you are listening, please make your content available in Ogg/Vorbis format! I can't think of a better way to get geeks to buy your music.
(Reminds me that I'm pretty lame for not making my music files available as Oggs yet....Tsk. Tsk. Time to look for a good encoder for OSX. Any suggestions?)
Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/2676
Will Echo offer Ogg/Vorbis downloads?
by Robert Kaye
Jan. 27, 2003
URL: http://www.echo.com/technology/index.html
Print this article
Today's unveiling of Echo Networks brings about a new online music venture formed by Best Buy, Tower Records, the Virgin Entertainment, Wherehouse Entertainment, Hastings Entertainment and Trans World Entertainment. Echo plans to license music from the recording industry and offer it to the Internet community, along with a broad range of real-time community features tightly integrated with the listening experience. Their web site states:
Echo will seek to unify the industry through a standard and open platform for the delivery of digital entertainment.
What exactly can we expect from an open platform? Does that mean that they will offer Ogg/Vorbis downloads? Ogg/Vorbis is just about the only truly free codec that is available -- everything else is encumbered by patents or other crazy royalty schemes.
Even classic MP3 doesn't fit this anymore since FHG/Thomson have started collecting royalties. So, Echo, if you are listening, please make your content available in Ogg/Vorbis format! I can't think of a better way to get geeks to buy your music.
Robert Kaye is the Mayhem & Chaos Coordinator and creator of MusicBrainz, the music metadata commons.
 | Wireless == great jukebox in the sky? |
While aggregated wireless music collections won't provide everything to everyone everywhere, they do have some interesting qualities that are worth exploring.If the community around you has the music, do you need to download all of the music to your machine? Better get another bigger harddrive, because the community will have more music than you have harddrive space. So, I hope that people will truely start sharing their collections instead of actually copying them as the current file sharing networks do. And if we're just sharing and not copying does that fall under fair use? (Never mind that fair use has been erradicated in the last few years).
Here's the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
http://openp2p.com/pub/wlg/2639
Its been over 5 years since the first MP3 Summit where the concept of the jukebox in the sky was hotly debated. The promise of the jukebox in the sky was to make all music available to users everywhere. Users could tap into the jukebox at home, at work, in their car or hiking up a mountain.
Five years later and the iPod is the closest thing to this jukebox we have -- not exactly what people talked about back then. With the current legal climate I'm not expecting the RIAA and its cronies to deliver this jukebox anytime soon.
Community wireless networks have a much better chance of delivering on this promise. Assume for a moment that wireless networks have come of age and in urban areas dense wireless networks blanket the neighborhoods.
Now lets assume that computer users make their music collections available via tools like iCommune. If you can aggregate the music collections of dozens/hundreds of people around you, you'll get a virtual music collection that approaches the jukebox in the sky.
This jukebox won't have everything under the sun (which physical jukebox does?), but it will have large amounts of music ready to be played, right now without waiting for it to download, which is not a bad start.
While aggregated wireless music collections won't provide everything to everyone everywhere, they do have some interesting qualities that are worth exploring.
If the community around you has the music, do you need to download all of the music to your machine? Better get another bigger harddrive, because the community will have more music than you have harddrive space. So, I hope that people will truely start sharing their collections instead of actually copying them as the current file sharing networks do. And if we're just sharing and not copying does that fall under fair use? (Never mind that fair use has been erradicated in the last few years).
And finally, if wireless networks don't rely on traditional ISPs, it conceivable to put firewalls/packet filters at locations where the wireless net connects to a traditional ISPs, so that the RIAA cannot even see these wireless jukeboxes?
Traditional ISPs unwittingly act as DMCA chokepoints, and if firewalls hide the activity of wireless networks, then how will the RIAA combat these jukeboxes in the sky?
Robert Kaye
I've made MP3 files of DJ Spooky's preview of his Birth of a Nation Remix (Edited exactly at the beginning and end of the music track that was played along side of his interactive visual presentation so it can be segued accordingly.)
and
The speaking portion of DJ Spooky's presentation (This is slightly incomplete in that I don't have him saying 'thank you' and making a few comments that he made at the end of the visual part of the presentation.)
Here is DJ Spooky's presentation at the Creative Commons Launch last Monday night.
I know these are big files guys, but I'll be posting some lower-quality versions a little later today. (These are up now on my index at: http://www.lisarein.com/videoindex.html#spooky.)
(DV experts -- please email me directly at lisarein@finetuning.com with suggestions about how to compress these files smaller -- I'm committed to perfecting my technique for this stuff!)
I'll be releasing an MP3 of the music too (from the Birth of a Nation Remix). -- And yes, Paul Miller (DJ Spooky) gave me his permission to redistribute all of this stuff into the public domain, so no worries there!
So remember - don't try to play these in your browser -- right click (pd) or click and hold (mac) to download these files to your hard drive and play them from there.
First part of DJ Spooky's Presentation
Second part of DJ Spooky's Presentation
Birth of a Nation Remix w/ DJ Spooky talk afterwards
DJ Spooky Holding Up The "AdBusters" Flag
Update June 24, 2003. The RAVE Act passed earlier this year when it was attached to the AMBER alert bill. Here's an explanation about how the bill passed and what's taken place as a result since then from the Drug Policy Alliance.
Here's a summary
and further analysis of the RAVE Bill by the Drug Policy Alliance.
Yikes! It's even worse than I thought!
The language of this RAVE Bill would make any citizen throwing a party liable for any drug use an ambiguously-defined general vacinity. We're talking jail time here for someone else's illegal activity that you had no knowledge of whatsoever.
It basically puts RAVEs under the juristiction of crack houses. As if, by definition, they were places used for the sale and manufacture of drugs.
Just the fact that "chill rooms" are cause for suspicion at a dancing venue is quite disturbing. What's suspicious about getting hot and wanting to sit down and "chill" for a while after dancing to some great music. Dancing is a healthy activity that should be encouraged, not persecuted.
Here's the full text:
http://www.drugpolicy.org/action/RaveBill.html
Proposed Law Could Subject You to 20 Years in Prison
The Senate is poised to pass legislation that would give federal prosecutors new powers to shut down RAVEs, hemp festivals, marijuana rallies and other events and punish business owners and activists for hosting or promoting them. Because of its broad language, the proposed law would also potentially subject people to enormous federal sentences if some of their guests smoked marijuana at their party or barbecue. It would also effectively make it a federal crime to rent property to medical marijuana patients and their caregivers.
Stop the Senate From Banning Marijuana Rallies and Other Events: Take Action Now!
The bill, known as the Reducing American's Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act (RAVE Act), was just introduced in the Senate on June 18th and has already passed the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is moving VERY rapidly and could be passed by the Senate as early as this week. While it purports to be aimed at ecstasy and other club drugs, it gives the federal government enormous power to fine and imprison supporters of marijuana legalization, even if they've never smoked marijuana.
Health advocates worry that the bill will endanger our nation's youth. If enacted, licensed and law-abiding business owners may stop hosting raves or other events that federal authorities don't like, out of fear of massive fines and prison sentences. Thus, the law would drive raves and other musical events further underground and away from public health and safety regulations. It would also discourage business owners from enacting smart harm-reduction measures to protect their customers. By insinuating that selling bottled water and offering "cool off" rooms is proof that owners and promoters know drug use is occurring at their events, this bill may make business owners too afraid to implement such harm-reduction measures, and the safety of our kids will suffer.
Read more about this bill, with an analysis by the Alliance.
***
full text of:
http://www.drugpolicy.org/action/RaveAnalysis.html
RAVE Act Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Reducing Americans Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act of 2002 (The RAVE Act)
(S. 2633)
Overview
S. 2633 (the RAVE Act) broadly expands Section 416(a) of the Controlled Substance Act (21 U.S.S. 856(a)), also known as the "crack house statute", to allow the federal government to fine or imprison businessmen and women if customers or tenants sell, use, or manufacture drugs on their premises or at their events. Just introduced in the Senate on June 18th, the RAVE Act has already passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and could be voted on under unanimous consent rules very soon.
Essentially the bill modifies two sections of the "crack house statute" to make it applicable to those who (1) knowingly open, lease, rent, use, any place either permanently or temporarily for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance, or (2) manage or control any place [building, room, or enclosure], whether permanently or temporarily, either as owner, lessee, agent, employee, occupant, or mortgagee, and knowingly and intentionally rent, lease, profit from, or make available for use, with or without compensation, the place [building, room, or enclosure] for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance. (Bold words are additions to statute, brackets are subtractions.)
The bill also gives federal prosecutors greater power to charge people civilly, rather than criminally, and provides for declaratory or injunctive relief.
What is Wrong with the RAVE Act?
Brief: The RAVE Act unfairly punishes businessmen and women for the crimes of their customers and is unprecedented in U.S. history. The federal government can't even keep drugs out of prisons, yet it seeks to punish business owners for failing to keep people from carrying drugs onto their premises. It is a danger to innocent businessmen and women, especially restaurant and nightclub owners, concert promoters, landlords, and real estate managers. Section 4 of the bill goes so far as to allow the federal government to charge property owners civilly, thus allowing prosecutors to fine property owners $250,000 (and put them out of business) without having to meet the higher standard of proof in criminal cases that is needed to protect innocent people.
Point-by-Point
* The RAVE Act is too broadly written and could subject innocent business owners to enormous fines or prison sentences. While supporters of the bill claim that innocent business owners don't need to worry because it only applies to people that knowingly open, lease, rent, use or maintain a place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using a controlled substance, "knowingly" and "for the purpose of" are too undefined to provide adequate protection to innocent businessmen and women. A nightclub owner that decides to play music at his club knows that certain young people will probably use drugs while they dance to the music. Despite good security, the owner could potentially be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars and forced into bankruptcy. Because prosecutors could charge owners civilly under this law, the standard of proof is too low to adequately protect innocent property owners. The bill's addition of the word "temporarily" undermines the very purpose of the "crack house statute" which was targeting property that was being used primarily for drug offenses, not making property owners liable for isolated actions that occur on their property, whether they are there or not.
* The bill is so broadly written that individuals could potentially face 20-year sentences for using drugs at home. As currently written, the proposed law would make it a federal crime to temporarily use a place for the purpose of using any illegal drug. Thus, anyone who used drugs in their own home or threw an event (such as a party or barbecue) in which one or more of their guests used drugs could potentially face a $500,000 fine and up to twenty years in federal prison. If the offense occurred at a hotel room or on a cruise ship, the owner of the property could also be potentially liable.
* The bill could endanger our nation's youth. If enacted, licensed and law-abiding business owners may stop hosting raves and other musical events, out of fear of massive fines and prison sentences. Thus, the RAVE Act will drive raves and other musical events further underground and away from public health and safety regulations. It would also discourage business owners from enacting important measures to protect their customers. By insinuating that selling bottled water and offering "cool off" rooms is proof that owners and promoters know drug use is occurring at their events, this bill may make business owners too afraid to implement such harm-reduction measures, and the safety of our kids will suffer.
* The bill is a dangerous threat to free speech and the right to dance. Property owners, promoters, and event coordinators could be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars or face up to twenty years in federal prison if they hold raves or other events on their property. If the bill becomes law, property owners may be too afraid to rent or lease their property to groups holding hemp festivals, all-night dance parties, rock concerts, or any other event rightly or wrongly perceived as attracting drug users (essentially any event that attracts a young crowd.)
* The bill punishes property owners that rent to people following state law. The bill effectively makes it a federal crime to rent property to medical marijuana patients and their caregivers. While those using or providing marijuana are prosecutable under federal law, this bill would make any property owner that leased or rented property to such people also liable for their offenses.
* Passage of the Senate bill would give momentum to a similar House bill (HR 3782) that is even more broadly written. That bill declares that "Whoever knowingly promotes any rave , dance, music, or other entertainment event, that takes place under circumstances where the promoter knows or reasonably ought to know that a controlled substance will be used or distributed in violation of Federal law or the law of the place were the event is held, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than 9 years, or both." (Emphasis ours).
Here's the full text of the Bill for S 2633, as painfully obtained eventually from Thomas.loc.gov.
This bill is so totally confused about RAVE culture and what it represents, I won't even try to defend it here. RAVE culture is the newest of the music communities and so, easier to pick on. But don't be fooled. Any music community could be next -- this law could be used to disrupt any music event, not just RAVEs.
Here is the text of the painfully obtained text from thomas.loc.gov:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./temp/~c107sg39oE::
Bill 1 of 2
There is 1 other version of this bill.
GPO's PDF version of this bill References to this bill in the Congressional Record Link to the Bill Summary & Status file. Full Display - 8,422 bytes.[Help]
RAVE Act (Introduced in Senate)
S 2633 IS
107th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 2633
To prohibit an individual from knowingly opening, maintaining, managing, controlling, renting, leasing, making available for use, or profiting from any place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
June 18, 2002
Mr. BIDEN (for himself and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To prohibit an individual from knowingly opening, maintaining, managing, controlling, renting, leasing, making available for use, or profiting from any place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act of 2002' or the `RAVE Act'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Each year tens of thousands of young people are initiated into the drug culture at `rave' parties or events (all-night, alcohol-free dance parties typically featuring loud, pounding dance music).
(2) Some raves are held in dance clubs with only a handful of people in attendance. Other raves are held at temporary venues such as warehouses, open fields, or empty buildings, with tens of thousands of people present.
(3) The trafficking and use of `club drugs', including 3, 4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (Ecstasy or MDMA), Ketamine hydrochloride (Ketamine), Flunitrazepam (Rohypnol), and Gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB), is deeply embedded in the rave culture.
(4) Many rave promoters go to great lengths to try to portray their events as alcohol-free parties that are safe places for young adults to go to dance with friends, and some even go so far as to hire off-duty, uniformed police officers to patrol outside of the venue to give parents the impression that the event is safe.
(5) Despite such efforts to convince parents that raves are safe, promotional flyers with slang terms for Ecstasy or pictures of Ecstasy pills send the opposite message to teenagers, and in effect promote Ecstasy along with the rave. According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, raves have become little more than a way to exploit American youth.
(6) Because rave promoters know that Ecstasy causes the body temperature in a user to rise and as a result causes the user to become very thirsty, many rave promoters facilitate and profit from flagrant drug use at rave parties or events by selling over-priced bottles of water and charging entrance fees to `chill-rooms' where users can cool down.
(7) To enhance the effects of the drugs that patrons have ingested, rave promoters sell--
(A) neon glow sticks;
(B) massage oils;
(C) menthol nasal inhalers; and
(D) pacifiers that are used to combat the involuntary teeth clenching associated with Ecstasy.
(8) Ecstasy is the most popular of the club drugs associated with raves. Thousands of teenagers are treated for overdoses and Ecstasy-related health problems in emergency rooms each year. The Drug Abuse Warning Network reports that Ecstasy mentions in emergency visits grew 1,040 percent between 1994 and 1999.
(9) Ecstasy damages neurons in the brain which contain serotonin, the chemical responsible for mood, sleeping and eating habits, thinking processes, aggressive behavior, sexual function, and sensitivity to pain. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, this can lead to long-term brain damage that is still evident 6 to 7 years after Ecstasy use.
(10) An Ecstasy overdose is characterized by an increased heart rate, hypertension, renal failure, visual hallucinations, and overheating of the body (some Ecstasy deaths have occurred after the core body temperature of the user goes as high as 110 degrees, causing all major organ systems to shutdown and muscles to breakdown), and may cause heart attacks, strokes, and seizures.
SEC. 3. OFFENSES.
(a) IN GENERAL- Section 416(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 856(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking `open or maintain any place' and inserting `open, lease, rent, use, or maintain any place, whether permanently or temporarily,'; and
(2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
`(2) manage or control any place, whether permanently or temporarily, either as an owner, lessee, agent, employee, occupant, or mortgagee, and knowingly and intentionally rent, lease, profit from, or make available for use, with or without compensation, the place for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance.'.
(b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT- The heading to section 416 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 856) is amended to read as follows:
`SEC. 416. MAINTAINING DRUG-INVOLVED PREMISES.'.
(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The table of contents to title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Prevention Act of 1970 is amended by striking the item relating to section 416 and inserting the following:
`Sec. 416. Maintaining drug-involved premises.'.
SEC. 4. CIVIL PENALTY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR MAINTAINING DRUG-INVOLVED PREMISES.
Section 416 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 856) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(d)(1) Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than the greater of--
`(A) $250,000; or
`(B) 2 times the gross receipts, either known or estimated, that were derived from each violation that is attributable to the person.
`(2) If a civil penalty is calculated under paragraph (1)(B), and there is more than 1 defendant, the court may apportion the penalty between multiple violators, but each violator shall be jointly and severally liable for the civil penalty under this subsection.
`(e) Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be subject to declaratory and injunctive remedies as set forth in section 403(f).'.
SEC. 5. DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE REMEDIES.
Section 403(f)(1) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 843(f)(1)) is amended by striking `this section or section 402' and inserting `this section, section 402, or 416'.
SEC. 6. SENTENCING COMMISSION GUIDELINES.
The United States Sentencing Commission shall--
(1) review the Federal sentencing guidelines with respect to offenses involving gamma hydroxybutyric acid (GHB);
(2) consider amending the Federal sentencing guidelines to provide for increased penalties such that those penalties reflect the seriousness of offenses involving GHB and the need to deter them; and
(3) take any other action the Commission considers necessary to carry out this section.
SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR A DEMAND REDUCTION COORDINATOR.
There is authorized to be appropriated $5,900,000 to the Drug Enforcement Administration of the Department of Justice for the hiring of a special agent in each State to serve as a Demand Reduction Coordinator.
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR DRUG EDUCATION.
There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as necessary to the Drug Enforcement Administration of the Department of Justice to educate youth, parents, and other interested adults about the drugs associated with raves.
You've heard me rant before about the Right to Peaceably Assemble and this importance of this right in any kind of free society.
Well, that right is coming under attack again. This time in the name of the war on drugs. Take a look at: S 2633 the "Reducing America's Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act of 2002".
There are some petitions (C.A.R.A. - Citizens Against the R.A.V.E. Act and A.A.R.A. - Americans Against the R.A.V.E. Act) and there will be a huge nation-wide demonstration (NY, LA, DC) on demonstrations on September 6, 2002.
The R.A.V.E. Act was introduced in the Senate on June 18th and passed the Senate Judiciary Committee a week later, without a public hearing or recorded vote. It has been placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar and could come up for a full Senate vote in September. A number of organizations including civil liberties groups, business associations, and groups associated with the rave community, are working to defeat the RAVE Act or amend it to better protect innocent business owners, free speech, and public health. Tens of thousands of voters have signed petitions, and faxed or called their Senators to oppose this Act. Protests in opposition to the RAVE Act will be held simultaneously in cities around the country, including a rave and protest on the lawn of the U.S. Capitol on September 6th.
Here's the full text in case the link goes bad:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/08/30/083247.php#20020830083247
"For Immediate Release:
August 28, 2002
Music Community Unites
To Fight Unconstitutional R.A.V.E. Act:
Protests Scheduled for LA, NYC and DC on
September 6th
Los Angeles, CA - A coalition of members of the music community have come
together to protest the unconstitutional R.A.V.E act now being considered
by
the US Senate. The R.A.V.E. (Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy)
Act, bill number S.2633 would expand the federal "crackhouse" statute.
Water
Bottles, Glowsticks and chill out rooms could be classified as "drug
promotion." Business people, promoters, venue owners and even homeowners
will be liable for any drugs used on their premises.
Clearly such a sweeping change in the law requires a response. The Los
Angeles protest will take place September 6th from 3pm - 8pm on the
Northwest Lawn of the Westwood Federal Building at 11000 Wilshire Blvd.
Numerous luminaries of the LA and international DJ community including Doc
Martin, Richard Humpty Vission, Garth Trinidad, Colette, Curious, Daniel,
Kid Dragon, Freddy B and others will DJ. The event has been organized
through a coalition of organizations in LA's world renown electronic music
community including: Hi-Roller, Rock The Vote, Green Galactic, EM:DEF, V
Squared Labs, Project Sweatshop, PAS, WAX, Sound Lessons, Insomnia, Good
Stuff, Junglist Platoon, B3 Cande, eventvisuals.com, and Solid.
The R.A.V.E. Act was introduced in the Senate on June 18th and passed the
Senate Judiciary Committee a week later, without a public hearing or
recorded vote. It has been placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar and
could come up for a full Senate vote in September. A number of
organizations
including civil liberties groups, business associations, and groups
associated with the rave community, are working to defeat the RAVE Act or
amend it to better protect innocent business owners, free speech, and
public
health. Tens of thousands of voters have signed petitions, and faxed or
called their Senators to oppose this Act. Protests in opposition to the
RAVE
Act will be held simultaneously in cities around the country, including a
rave and protest on the lawn of the U.S. Capitol on September 6th.
Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) is the primary sponsor of the bill, but it is
also being co-sponsored by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley
(R-IA), Richard Durbin (D-IL), and Patrick Leahy (D-VT). The R.A.V.E. Act
expands the federal "crack house statute" to make it easier for the federal
government to fine or imprison businessmen up to 20 years in federal prison
if they fail to prevent customers or tenants from selling or using drugs on
their premises or at their events. The RAVE Act increases the civil and
criminal liability that business owners and event promoters could face if
customers commit drug offenses on their property.
The RAVE Act is not just about Ecstasy and Raves. While proponents of the
RAVE Act are trying to target the electronic music community, the RAVE Act
would allow federal prosecutors to target other events, such as Rock or Hip
Hop concerts, country music events, and world music festivals. It could
apply to hotel and motel owners, cruise ship operators, stadium owners,
landlords, real estate managers, and event promoters. The bill is so
broadly
written that individuals could potentially face 20-year sentences for using
drugs at home. Anyone who used drugs in their own home or threw an event
(such as a party or barbecue) in which one or more of their guests used
drugs could potentially face a $500,000 fine and up to twenty years in
federal prison. If the offense occurred in a hotel room or on a cruise
ship,
the owner of the property could also be potentially liable.
For those unable to attend the protest in person we strongly recommend
writing (preferable), faxing or calling your Senator on September 6th. A
fax form, sample letter and senator info is available at:
http://www.emdef.org/s2633/. A link to the petition, the Drug Policy
Alliance's analysis of the bill along with the full text of the bill and
the
introductory statements for the bill from the Congressional Record are also
available at that link.
# # #
For more information please contact Susan Mainzer at Green Galactic,
323-466-5141 or susan@greengalactic.com"
Fresh off the presses and ready for you to fax your reps in (let's say) 15 seconds.
(Maybe 30 seconds if you have to look up your zipcode.)
I think we can all agree that the future of Internet Webcasting is worth 30 seconds.
Thanks!
Contact your Representative and Senators to SAVE INTERNET RADIO!
It looks like it wants to make the web a PHP-based MP3 player. Great idea!
(Thanks, Cory)
Cory mentioned something about Radio Paradise Open Sourcing their software, but I can't find any other specifics about it...
P.S. -- Donate $5 or $10 to Radioparadise.com -- You'll Feel Better.
(Thanks, Cam -- and feel free to speak the truth about the Shrub -- some of us will be glad you did.)
Speaking of Mac Mixing Apps, I hear that Final Scratch and Baytex Party are the bomb.
More specifics on Baytex, courtesy of Bart Cheever, CEO of DFILM:
"Any Mac DJ's out there I *strongly* recommend you check out Baytex Party - by far the best MP3 DJ player on the market, IMO. It's got great features like: Easy to use very natural feeling pitch control, Multiple sound outputs (so you can cue and beatmatch one MP3 while the other is playing), Rock solid - never ever crashes, Simple feature to count and enter BPMs (you can sort your entire MP3 library by BPM). I've tried most of the other MP3 DJ players out there and I haven't been this excited by a product since I bought my original 1200's 17 years ago!"
