Re: [abcusers] Musicians and techies
On the other hand, that could be good for traditional musicians! Modern jazz (aka bebop) evolved partically out of a strange NYC tax on vocal music, that did not apply to instrumental music. Bert wrote: >> This means that a pub owner here has to pay nothing for a band that >> plays a traditional set, but he has to pay *twice* for playing cd's! To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Musicians and techies
On Sat, 2003-02-01 at 10:34, Ray Davies wrote: This is done in the name of noise and saftey (although existing laws could be applied) but things like playing recorded music or showing a soccer on wide screen tv are exempted even though they can be more noisey, a football match on tv can draw more people into a pub than a few accousitic folk musicians, etc. I fear that many pubs will not ask for live entertainment to avoid hassle and I fear for the future of our music. I'm also quite disgusted with the way the law gives unfair advantage to those already with power and money. Here in Belgium it's rather the other way round. For live performances, a fee should be payed to the Belgian society of authors, composers and publishers (SABAM -- I told about this in some previous posting, I believe). If SABAM distributed all these fees among the composers fairly (which it doesn't), that would only be just. When the band performs only traditional or public domain music, you don't have to pay at all. However, the performance and the playlist should be reported to SABAM. For playing recorded music, on the other hand, we're screwed twice. First, there's the fee for the composers (collected by SABAM). But last year, a new law was passed that introduced *another* fee that goes to the performers, called the 'fair compensation'. The idea is that performing artists put some effort in recording stuff and should be compensated for it. The fair compensation is collected by another society. This means that a pub owner here has to pay nothing for a band that plays a traditional set, but he has to pay *twice* for playing cd's! Same goes for societies that organise events (a festival, a ball, etc.) bert -- Bert Van Vreckem If Bill Gates had a penny for each time Windows crashed... Wait a minute! He does! To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Musicians and techies
John Chambers wrote: > > Kurt wrote: > | On 30-Jan-2003 John Chambers wrote: > | > > | > ...The Internet can't be killed, but there is > | > still a chance that it can be made illegal for you and me to put our > | > own stuff online. If they can do this, they can then force us to sign > | > over our rights to our own stuff to get it online, and they'll be > | > back in the saddle. > | > | I followed you this far. But are there any laws or technical proposals being > | made right now that would make it impossible to put your own stuff online? Or ... > > Well, here in the USA, a lot of ISPs have licenses that > include a "no servers" rule. They generally aren't well > enforced, but they can kick you off if you have any program > listening on any port. [skip lots] > > In most of the country, the local ISP is a monopoly. If you > don't like them, well, you don't have to have internet > service, now do you? > [skip] > > (And note that if you put your own recordings online on an > ISP's machine, you may be handing over the copyright to the > ISP.) > This hemisphere things are not different. When I signed up with my then (really) local ISP I was told I had an amount of disk space for a personal home page and that what I put there was up to me. The ISP has, since then, been sold to foreign corporations twice before I could set up my HP, and the deal on that matter has changed. In short, a lot of what I would want to put on the net would violate the terms. Then what? Let's look for a free space provider! So far, if I publish anything via their servers, I am surrendering all my author rights and I would still be subject to the aforementioned limitations. Our problem: we have laws that state very clearly what terms the seller imposes when you by a, say, TV set that might be considered abusive; still we have no such regulations regarding ISP omnipotence. ISPs and other corporations are lobbying for their interests; Brazilian copyright law has recently been changed to comply with transnational CD, book, software and what-have-you industry exploitation and that is what they are modelling: the idea is to turn your computer screen into a better resolution extension of a TV receiver. Awkwardly, some judge has recently issued a sentence that withdraws the requirement of someone being a licenced journalist (legal here so far) to write on the press; nevertheless, ISPs still rule when it comes to write on the net. Paulo E. Tibúrcio To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Musicians and techies
On Sat, 2003-02-01 at 10:34, Ray Davies wrote: > > This is done in the name of noise and saftey (although existing laws could > > be applied) but things like playing recorded music or showing a soccer on > > wide screen tv are exempted even though they can be more noisey, a > football > > match on tv can draw more people into a pub than a few accousitic folk > > musicians, etc. > > > > I fear that many pubs will not ask for live entertainment to avoid hassle > > and I fear for the future of our music. I'm also quite disgusted with the > > way the law gives unfair advantage to those already with power and money. You think it's bad there in the UK? It's non-existant here in the US. I don't think I've even been in a session in a pub or bar here, ever! There's no exposure for traditional music here in that manner. Doesn't matter what tradition it's from, except maybe Tejano and Cajun, which have huge regional followings. We always usually play in people's kitchens, or else in meeting halls.. Not the best way to be heard by the masses! 4-5 years ago, this type of thing used to really bother me. It used to constantly depress me. I used to think that no one cared about the music. It doesn't bug me any more though, because I've found a way around it. All you have to do is put together a band, play everything amplified very loudly through a couple Vox AC30's, and put on the Noel & Liam Gallagher attitudes. :-) Then you'll have people calling you up to play gigs at places you've never even heard of. So what if you're not playing the "pure drop" as far as being strictly traditional? So you're creating a fusion? Big deal.. I spent years practicing many hours a day, playing traditional tune sets in a very traditional manner, and no one knew how well I could play them, except for maybe a couple dozen people here in LA. I paid my dues, I know how this stuff is supposed to sound. I think it's actually good for the tradition, because you've made it more accessible to the masses. That's how I first got interested in this music years ago.. I think I heard "7 nations" or one of those bands. That drew me in and I gradually started listening and playing more traditional stuff. Toby To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Musicians and techies
Jon Freeman writes > So there's a world plot is there? I thought it was just the UK government > who have new laws for public entertaiment in England and Wales. > > One aspect of it is that although the licence costs no more if you want live > entertainment, you have to state it on your application and have an annual > inspection and could face £1,000s in terms of improvement. > > This is done in the name of noise and saftey (although existing laws could > be applied) but things like playing recorded music or showing a soccer on > wide screen tv are exempted even though they can be more noisey, a football > match on tv can draw more people into a pub than a few accousitic folk > musicians, etc. > > I fear that many pubs will not ask for live entertainment to avoid hassle > and I fear for the future of our music. I'm also quite disgusted with the > way the law gives unfair advantage to those already with power and money. There's an article about this at http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,883633,00.html Also there's a petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/2inabar/petition.html Ray To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Musicians and techies
From: "John Chambers" > We've recently seen things like the attempt to prosecute > the Girl Scouts for singing copyrighted songs around the > campfire. They did back off on that one, but only after a > lot of publicity and outrage. There are all the attempts to > stop things like pub sessions, or make participants pay for > they right to "perform" their own compositions and/or very > old tunes. The goal overall is a world in which you and I > have to pay the oligopoly for the right to play any music, > even our own, in private settings. So there's a world plot is there? I thought it was just the UK government who have new laws for public entertaiment in England and Wales. One aspect of it is that although the licence costs no more if you want live entertainment, you have to state it on your application and have an annual inspection and could face £1,000s in terms of improvement. This is done in the name of noise and saftey (although existing laws could be applied) but things like playing recorded music or showing a soccer on wide screen tv are exempted even though they can be more noisey, a football match on tv can draw more people into a pub than a few accousitic folk musicians, etc. I fear that many pubs will not ask for live entertainment to avoid hassle and I fear for the future of our music. I'm also quite disgusted with the way the law gives unfair advantage to those already with power and money. Jon To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Musicians and techies
Kurt wrote: | On 30-Jan-2003 John Chambers wrote: | > | > This sort of site is a real threat to the recording industry, and is | > really what the "music piracy" fuss is all about. Their main goal is | > to take control of the Internet and put distribution back into the | > hands of the oligopoly. The Internet can't be killed, but there is | > still a chance that it can be made illegal for you and me to put our | > own stuff online. If they can do this, they can then force us to sign | > over our rights to our own stuff to get it online, and they'll be | > back in the saddle. | | I followed you this far. But are there any laws or technical proposals being | made right now that would make it impossible to put your own stuff online? Or | are you worried that that's their next target? The only things I've heard about | so far, while draconian, do seem to be aimed at piracy. But maybe I'm missing | something. Well, here in the USA, a lot of ISPs have licenses that include a "no servers" rule. They generally aren't well enforced, but they can kick you off if you have any program listening on any port. Most American ISPs now block port 80, the standard web port, so you can't run a web server on that port. You can run one on another port, of course, and change the port number when they block you again. When they terminate your service for this violation, you have little recourse, unless you want to spend a few million in a court battle with a giant corporation. One of the reasons they do this is that they want to sell server "space" on their machines. Part of the motive is that if your files are on their machines, they can easily see them and do things without you knowing. An extreme case of this was last year, when customers discovered that a lot of MSN advertising contained material (mostly images) from customers' web sites and email. Their license states explicitly that any files stored on their machines became the property of msn.com and Microsoft corporation. A lot of small ISPs have been bought up by msn.com in the past couple of years. In one recent case (in Arizona) the customers found that email on the ISP's server was now only readable from a Microsoft mail reader. Unix users with a persistent connection (cable or DSL) can run their own SMTP server, of course, but those customers found that port 25 was now blocked, killing their home email and forcing them to use msn's. There have also been sporadic reports of ISPs "editing" their customers' web sites and email. This isn't just for piracy or porn; it has also been used to wipe out text that was critical of the ISP. In most of the country, the local ISP is a monopoly. If you don't like them, well, you don't have to have internet service, now do you? In most of the rest of the country, the ISPs are forced to use either the phone lines or the cable modem, and there is at most one of each of those. The phone and cable companies (often the same company) are now involved in a major campaign to give them more control over their own lines. That is, they want to eliminate those competitors who are able to sell service over "their" lines, and make internet service into a monopoly that they control. It's no secret that the Bush administration is on their side, and is pushing to eliminate the "regulations" that force them to lease out their lines to ISPs. Draw your own conclusions. (And note that if you put your own recordings online on an ISP's machine, you may be handing over the copyright to the ISP.) To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Musicians and techies
| John Chambers wrote: | > | > (Does this qualify as sufficiently funny to be a musical joke? ;-) | | It may be funny, but I don't think it's a joke. I think it falls into | the "ha ha only serious" category. There is, unfortunately, a lot of | truth in it. (I myself am a computer programmer, but I barely play any | instruments, mostly a (very) small amount of tin-whistle and recorder. | I do, however, folk dance. | | Can I repost those comments elsewhere off-list, with proper attribution | (of course)? Sure; I always assume when I send something out to a list like this that it is effectively public domain, and people will do with it what they like. Attribution is always nice, though in cases like this, there's also the paranoid thought that "they" will read it and decide to go after you. But one of the lessons from several decades of Internet development is that the best things always seem to be those that are done out in the open. Then people can criticise, edit, and rewrite. And if I get any flak from the Big Guys from reprints of my comments, I'll be sure to let y'all know. Maybe what we really need is for others to respond with their own takes on the issue. See if we can keep it on the topic of music. Pick from them and put together your own summary of the history. This could be significant for abc users. We've recently seen a growing misuse of the concept of "copyright" to block things that used to be considered "fair use" and "free speech". Here in the US, under the DMCA, copyright can now be used to fine and jail people who report shoddy products. Eventually the oligopoly will notice abc and will try to shut it down. Most of the people who do this will be acting under the impression that abc is a new format for sound formats; i.e.; they'll be clueless. But I can predict this fairly easily, since I've gotten a fair amount of email about my tune finder from people who can't use it to find the recordings they're looking for. A couple of these have been from recording/broadcast types who were obviouly looking for pirate recordings and puzzled that they couldn't find them. The boxed notice in the tune finder page stopped most of these, but it should give you an idea of the level of understanding that we're up against. We've recently seen things like the attempt to prosecute the Girl Scouts for singing copyrighted songs around the campfire. They did back off on that one, but only after a lot of publicity and outrage. There are all the attempts to stop things like pub sessions, or make participants pay for they right to "perform" their own compositions and/or very old tunes. The goal overall is a world in which you and I have to pay the oligopoly for the right to play any music, even our own, in private settings. It should be interesting to watch the battle ... To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Musicians and techies
Buddha Buck wrote: ... In order for various DIgital Rights Managment schemes to work to prevent piracy, the digital players can only play works you have rights to play. This requires that the rights be encoded in the digital media, and signed in such a way to prevent forgery or undetected modification. If it isn't signed, or isn't signed by a trusted (in the eyes of the DRM software) party, the DRM software won't play the media. There is a growing concern among the professional musicians' organisations about this new proposed DRM regime. You can be assured that when the battle begins, all musicians, pros and amateurs will fight on the same side. If this DRM scheme is to suceed, it has to be mandatory and non-DRM channels have to be prohibited. Otherwise, consumers who don't want to deal with the DRM BS will simply use existing or new non-DRM tools. Guess who will control the "trusted" signing keys? Guess how successful any DRM policy will be? They don't stand a chance! That's the real sad thing about this whole thing. So much resources wasted on an idea that are neither good nor possible There is an old saying that "The Internet treats censorship as damage, and routes around it." I think it can be updated to say "The Internet treats abusive copyrights as damage, and routes around it." In this particular case there's no difference whatsoever between censorship and abusive copyrights. Frank Nordberg http://www.musicaviva.com To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Musicians and techies
My own version of this story, or "There and Back Again". I was always a geek. I was in Spelling Bees, read alot, sucked at sports, got picked on a lot (sound familiar?). In the 5th grade, they passed out little index cards with the intention of getting us to join the band. On the card was a list of instruments to choose from. We were supposed to circle one, and hand it back in. I circled Saxophone -- I was a fan of "Happy Days", and Richie Cunningham played the Sax. A couple of weeks later, I was the proud [almost] owner of a cheesy student model alto saxophone, which I picked up pretty quickly. Over the years in Junior High, and up through High School, my musical affinity grew -- I picked up Guitar in 9th grade (to get girls, of course, which really didn't work all that well), and eventually became part of the marching band at the high school. Now I was a true geek -- a "band fag" to be precise. Along the way, my abilities and aptitude for Math became evident, eventually paving the way for me to go through an Accelerated Math curriculum at my school. Additionally, I took a course in BASIC in the 10th grade, which I found very simple, but never went beyond that (as far as computers) in High school. By the time I was a Senior, and it was time to apply to Colleges, I was torn: Should I try for Music, my passion, or should I be smart, and go into Engineering, or something else to use my Math aptitude (and try to make some money)? I spoke to a number of people, and it was mainly my Band director to whom I give credit (blame?) for my decision to try to meld my love of music and my ability in math into a Music Major with emphasis in Sound Recording Technology -- a Recording Engineer. I attended the University of Lowell, MA (now UMass, Lowell) the following Fall, and excelled in their program when I started. Now, what happens when you dump a total geek into a Music college? Answer: He learns how to party -- and very heartily, I might add. My GPA, which started at 3.6 my first semester, steadily nose-dived for 4 years, til my final semester (my 4th year, but not enough credits to be a Senior) I had something in the ballpark of a 1.6. While at college, I became a real performing musician, playing what we called "covers for drunks" - you know the type - the guy playing and singing in a bar for a bunch of screaming 22-year-olds who want to hear "American Pie" and "Brown-eyed Girl" three times a night. My future wife eventually ended up being my singing partner, and we kept this gig going for a while, eventually no longer "covers for drunks" but playing the coffeehouse circuit with my original compositions. Something else happened along the way also. The University program I was in was a music program, but it was also pretty heavy technically: We had to take up through Calc 2, Basic Electrical Engineering courses, Pascal Programming, and Physics/Acoustics classes, all with the intention of weeding out those musicians who couldn't handle the technical aspects of the program. I had the opposite problem: I aced all the "hard" stuff, and slacked at the music classes. By the middle of my 2nd Senior year, it was obvious that a music degree was not for me, and besides I was broke, and anything more than 4 years of college was on my tab -- not my parents' anymore. I ended up moving back home. I then enrolled in Rhode Island College as (of all things) a Math Major, with the intention of becoming a High School Math teacher! I graduated 3 years later, Magna Cum Laude, and set out to find a teaching job. After substitute teaching for 3 years (at $60/day!) and working odd manual jobs (I was also a professional house painter), I ended up taking some programming classes, and to make a long story short (it's already long, isn't it?), I met someone in the class, and she got me a job working in software Quality Assurance at her company, where I worked for 4 1/2 years, honed my programming skills, and then (where I am now) got a job as a real full-fledged programmer. Which takes us up to just a few months back, when I saw a local Fife & Drum Corps, and I joined them as a Fifer -- having never played the Fife before, but being a geek and a lifelong musician, it was pretty simple to pick up -- which is when I discovered ABC while looking for a way to decently transcribe the ugly-handwritten-photocopies-of-photocopies repertoire I was handed when I joined. So that's my long-winded version of "There and Back Again", in which I go from Geek-to-Musician-to-Geek-to-Musician- . . . How long 'til I'm a geek again? (If you read this far, thanks for humoring me! It's good to spew every now and then. Perhaps I'll add this to my CV!) -Chris -- Christopher Myers, Graduate Software Developer Ingenta, Inc. 111R Chestnut St. Providence, RI 02903 ph: 401.331.2014 x 102 em: [EMAIL PROTECTED] aim: chrismyers001 To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Musicians and techies
Kurt Kleiner wrote: On 30-Jan-2003 John Chambers wrote: This sort of site is a real threat to the recording industry, and is really what the "music piracy" fuss is all about. Their main goal is to take control of the Internet and put distribution back into the hands of the oligopoly. The Internet can't be killed, but there is still a chance that it can be made illegal for you and me to put our own stuff online. If they can do this, they can then force us to sign over our rights to our own stuff to get it online, and they'll be back in the saddle. I followed you this far. But are there any laws or technical proposals being made right now that would make it impossible to put your own stuff online? Or are you worried that that's their next target? The only things I've heard about so far, while draconian, do seem to be aimed at piracy. But maybe I'm missing something. In order for various DIgital Rights Managment schemes to work to prevent piracy, the digital players can only play works you have rights to play. This requires that the rights be encoded in the digital media, and signed in such a way to prevent forgery or undetected modification. If it isn't signed, or isn't signed by a trusted (in the eyes of the DRM software) party, the DRM software won't play the media. If this DRM scheme is to suceed, it has to be mandatory and non-DRM channels have to be prohibited. Otherwise, consumers who don't want to deal with the DRM BS will simply use existing or new non-DRM tools. Guess who will control the "trusted" signing keys? Guess how successful any DRM policy will be? There is an old saying that "The Internet treats censorship as damage, and routes around it." I think it can be updated to say "The Internet treats abusive copyrights as damage, and routes around it." Kurt To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Musicians and techies
On 30-Jan-2003 John Chambers wrote: > > This sort of site is a real threat to the recording industry, and is > really what the "music piracy" fuss is all about. Their main goal is > to take control of the Internet and put distribution back into the > hands of the oligopoly. The Internet can't be killed, but there is > still a chance that it can be made illegal for you and me to put our > own stuff online. If they can do this, they can then force us to sign > over our rights to our own stuff to get it online, and they'll be > back in the saddle. I followed you this far. But are there any laws or technical proposals being made right now that would make it impossible to put your own stuff online? Or are you worried that that's their next target? The only things I've heard about so far, while draconian, do seem to be aimed at piracy. But maybe I'm missing something. Kurt To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Musicians and techies
> I was referring to John Chamber's insightful discourse on the music > industry, musicians, computer/internet developers, and the future of > music. Yes, John's post was excellent.. It should be "preserved". BTW, are you the same guy who on the debian linux list? I think I've read your emails before. Toby To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Musicians and techies
Toby Rider wrote: Can I repost those comments elsewhere off-list, with proper attribution (of course)? Which comments? Hopefully not the one about my friends having lot's of tattos and piercings.. :-) I've no problem with tatoos and piercings -- except that I've never felt strongly about anything to the point I'd want it etched into my body forever. I was referring to John Chamber's insightful discourse on the music industry, musicians, computer/internet developers, and the future of music. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Musicians and techies
> Can I repost those comments elsewhere off-list, with proper attribution > (of course)? Which comments? Hopefully not the one about my friends having lot's of tattos and piercings.. :-) To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Musicians and techies
John Chambers wrote: (Does this qualify as sufficiently funny to be a musical joke? ;-) It may be funny, but I don't think it's a joke. I think it falls into the "ha ha only serious" category. There is, unfortunately, a lot of truth in it. (I myself am a computer programmer, but I barely play any instruments, mostly a (very) small amount of tin-whistle and recorder. I do, however, folk dance. Can I repost those comments elsewhere off-list, with proper attribution (of course)? To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Musicians and techies
Toby Rider wrote: | | Why is it that there are so many musicians that are either computer | people or engineers? I've been playing music of one form or another since | I was in elementary school and I'm noticing a definate pattern here.. I | recently spoke to some of the guys who were part of my most successful | rock-and-roll band in high school.. 3 out of the 4 of them turned out to | be either computer people or engineers.. | They have more piercings and tatoos then I do, but other then that, we're | in similiar lines of work. :-) Lots of people have noticed this. And the pattern goes back a long ways. One of the anecdotes I read a few years ago was that Georg Telemann was a science/enginerring student at college. But he paid his way by playing keyboards for local churches and special events. He also tried his hand at composing. He was so successful at this that after he graduated, he decided to ignore his technical degree and become a professional musician. He was, of course, one of the most successful musicians of the early 1700's. For a talented musician, such a decision could have been sensible up until sometime in the early 1900's. Then, during the 1930's and 40's, something changed. The recording industry arose. By 1950, it was no longer rational to attempt to make a living as a musician, at least in Europe and North America. To be a successful musician, you had to make recordings, and the recording industry had arranged things so that the musicians didn't profit from recordings. The oligopoly gave you no choice but to sign contracts that gave them ownership of the music and the recordings, with only a pittance to the musicians. All but the top 3 or 4 in any genre usually lost money. When I was in college, in the 60's, I understood this quite well. But like a lot of other kids, I did well in math and science, and when I was able to get my hands on computers (or punch cards, back then ;-), I decided that nobody in their right mind would become a musician. I graduated from college with exactly the same number of credits in math and music. And of course I went into computers. Since I was part of the computer crowd that was as interested in how computers got their data as with what they did with the data, I went into communications at an early stage, and naturally ended up part of the gang that brought the Internet to the world. I've noticed that Internet programmers are always amateur musicians. You have to look really hard to find even one that doesn't have an instrument that they play regularly. (Those are all folk dancers.) If the recording industry hadn't been so greedy, and had shared the money with the musicians, most of the Internet crowd would have become musicians, and the Internet would still be an academic toy that nobody else had ever heard of. But the recording industry blocked us all from our preferred occupation and forced us to become computer geeks. Now they're gonna pay for it. Our plan, of course, is to do to the recording industry what they did to us. If the plan succeeds, there will be no more profit for the fat cats who control the distribution channels. The business of selling recordings will die in the same way that the business of playing music for a living died. And we won't feel sorry for them. There will still be lots of recordings, of course. But now all it takes is a few thousand bucks to set up your own studio, making recordings, and selling them over the Net. I know a bunch of guys, all computer geeks, who are doing this on the side, and they are all seriously thinking of quitting their day jobs and going into music production full time. For a startup band, it no longer makes sense to deal with the music industry. You'll lose money, even if your recordings are successful. But there are local computer guys who can put your music online. You can't make a lot of money by selling music online, but you can make some, and the money will mostly go to the musicians. You can sell recordings online. You can put tunes online in abc form, and get some royalties if others want to use them. And you don't have to sign your rights away to anyone. For a nice example, look at: http://www.cranfordpub.com/ This site is run by a bunch of musicians, to distribute their own music. My ABC Tune Finder has included a lot of their tunes from the start. This sort of site is starting to pop up all over. It's probably the musical future for most of us. This sort of site is a real threat to the recording industry, and is really what the "music piracy" fuss is all about. Their main goal is to take control of the Internet and put distribution back into the hands of the oligopoly. The Internet can't be killed, but there is still a chance that it can be made illegal for you and me to put our own stuff online. If they can do this, they can then force us to si
