Alex Bond wrote: >I've tried all manner of topics today:
>gay dwarves as ear plugs >rhythm is rhythm secret hidden message in music from captain birdseye fish->fingers >none of them goers *i give up* >hahah.today OK try this Alex: 'The Electric Institute' (a case of 'just buy it' imho) is the first EMI CD I've bought for over a decade. So this anti-piracy statement on the inset of the jewel case is new to me: "This recording and artwork are protected by copyright law. Using Internet services to distribute copyrighted music, giving away illegal copies of discs or lending discs to others for them to copy is illegal and does not support those involved in making this piece of music - especially the artist. By carrying out any of these actions it has the same effect as stealing music..." etc. Now, I personally try to be scrupulous about music as I'm sincerely passionate about all music but especially 'advanced' electronic music. This means I've never illegally downloaded music. However I have received music from mates which might have been acquired in that way and I've sometimes made copies of CDs (or digitised vinyl) for friends. This is someone who actually *wants* to safeguard the income of musicians and the music biz (yeah all of it, including Madonna!) - But in EMI's view, *I'm* a crook too, as would many millions of people like me be as well (we do exist!) It makes me think that maybe EMI's view is extreme or unreasonable, just plain unrealistic, maybe just plain pointless. What do other people think? Alex, I'd particularly like to know your view, given that you were co-executive producer? I bet you won't say if you agree with EMI or not!!!! ;-) Ken
