In Defiance of The Grokster Decision
June 28, 2005 - mp3
In defiance of The Supreme Court's decision on Grokster/Streamcast, I bring you more MP3s.
I've decided that while I don't want to host an mp3 blog of my own - firstly because I don't have that much bandwidth to spare, secondly because I don't have enough mp3s to make it worthwhile, and lastly because I don't want to have to deal with potential copyright issues - I can still post links to other peoples' mp3 blogs from time to time, showcasing the music I really like and want to share. It also lets me make use of my new category system. Now, I won't link directly to the files, because I wouldn't want someone stealing my bandwidth like that. I'll link to the post and provide directions from there.
The first song I'm gonna link here is Cheap and Alive by The Sally Zito Project. They're a small California-based group with a good sound.
The next one you might want to give a listen is Old Man by Liz Wright. The blog post in question shows a head shot of this young bald hottie, and her remake of this Neil Young tune has a very slight African feel, due in part to the timbre of her voice. Very nice harmony.
Lastly, check out Ain't No Sunshine When She's Gone by Rahsaan Roland Kirk. Yes, another remake. But as the blog post points out, the late Roland Kirk was confined to a wheelchair, one half of his body paralyzed, and during his last concert, the man managed to play three saxophones at once. The first time I listened to the song, I could've sworn that it was Ian Anderson on the flute.
And in a last minute find, I've found Ella Fitzgerald covering Sunshine of Your Love!
EDIT: Since I last checked, the Roland Kirk track link has gone dead. You can still listen to the first few seconds of it here if you scroll down though.
Since when is "theft" a positive attribute that one should strive for? You don't mind downloading pirated music or software. Would you also endorse grand larceny or money laundering? It would seem that these items fall within the same vein of practices you support. I simply wonder to what extent you are willing to break the law before your consciences begins to grow from underneath your defense of crime.
You say that I "don't mind downloading pirated music or software". First of all, I challenge you to locate anywhere I've advocated downloading pirated software. And secondly, the music I speak of downloading falls into two categories: Music which the performers urge listeners to download, and music owned by the RIAA, who have exploited the artists.
Most commonly, law and morality are in line with each other. But in circumstances when lobbyists backed by wealthy and conscienceless companies sink endless monies into passing laws that enable them to exploit artists, the law needs to change.
I do not advocate theft. I just don't think that downloading and listening to a song is theft any more so than listening to the radio and skipping the commericals is theft.
I understand your stance all too clearly. You may not directly state that you "don't mind downloading pirated music or software," but you imply as much in multiple blogs. You don't like the RIAA. So because you don't agree with the law as it stands (or those behind the law) you choose to advocate the breaking of that law. Justification of why people commit a crime doesn't negate the fact that it is still a crime. Your logic has failed.You posted a Slashdot quote which stated, "In other news, a man in Queensland was found guilty of pointing at a stolen car in the street…" The problem is that even the quotes you use conform to your failed logic. This quite might more accurately read, "In other news, a man in Queensland was found guilty of pointing at a stolen car in the street...after he encouraged onlookers to take a free ride in the automobile."
If you believe that the music industry needs to be changed, than work to that end. But there are dozens of ways in which change can be fostered through legal avenues. A crusade against the RIAA through the sewers of crime is far less likely to net a positive outcome than engaging them in a honorable fashion.
Your concern for the rights of the artists is admirable, but forgetting that these same artists made a choice to sign these very contracts you attack misses the point. There are labels which treat their artists with dignity and respect. Finding and joining those labels falls to the artists themselves.
You are welcome to continue your crusade in the manner in which it suites you. If the industry does ever notice your opinion, it may be too tainted by the grime of sewage for them to act. However, if you rerouted your efforts through a more constructive avenue, change could be possible.
More importantly, when I find music I like, I determine whether it's been released under a RIAA label. If so, I buy a used copy from EBay or Half.com. If it's under an independent label, I'll buy from the artist every time. I don't expect this alone to have any great impact, but I'll do my share where I can.
As far as listening to music on mp3 blogs, I don't think that breaking this law is any worse than taping a show off the radio, using fireworks, or driving without a seat belt.
--
M
Actually, I agree with you. Years from now, when the dust has settled, we can talk about just how silly and stupid all this is.
Oh - don't forget your mom's b'day! It's tomorrow (June 29 tomorrow, that is).