Excelsior the book

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (832 of them)

people are just overreacting to one person's would-be gaffe which has since been humbly retracted before it even started, and people are letting their aggression out over something that never even really occurred. I see why people don't want to have the stuff published but since it's not going to be published by the completely repentant single person who was going to do it, why not try to make things cheery again? IT'S OVER

― Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:35 (nineteen years ago) link

dammit broke my promise

― Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:35 (nineteen years ago) link

(That was my x-posted last word.)

Gear, if you don't like the discussion, go read another thread, for Christ's sake. Nobody's talking about Mark's book anymore; we're just talking about copyrights.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:37 (nineteen years ago) link

ok i give in.

keep in mind i don't give a shit about this book and am flabbergasted/not at all surprised by the responses here.

in my experience, people who completely cannot see the point behind being offended by copyright infringement and are wandering around going information is free! free like a baby deer! or some shit are people whose thoughts aren't worth stealing to begin with.

also, like elvis telecom said, those threads were all utterly shit, wtf? THAT is more an indicator of "ILX's demise" than this infight ever will be.

i'm thinking of making a compilation of everything dan, andrew farrell, and john d. ever said on ilx though and flyering the entirety of columbia university with it, i think they're ok. and gear! otm! hstence to the izzo is also correct in that this should just be a separate thread cos i kind of feel bad for mark at this point?

― allyzay, Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:37 (nineteen years ago) link

http://www.piercegleeson.com/photos/daisy.jpg
http://www.clarkson.edu/~barnetja/images/c-h-hug.jpg

― Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:37 (nineteen years ago) link

Gear's right, which is why I suggest limiting it to philosophical/legal instead of recriminations.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:38 (nineteen years ago) link

Nabisco, do you not see any difference between 99% of the posts to ILX and 12-paragraph essays that would be of interest to Spin?

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:38 (nineteen years ago) link

ya'll not just talking about copyrights, people are getting angry and defensive and bitching at one another and leaving ILX foreva, and it's really silly that it's over this. it's done and it won't happen in the future obviously, because of the major waves caused by this minor infraction. I don't want to get into an argument about it, I'd rather argue about stuff like war and Saint Etienne and roommates, so I apologize to you Nabisco sir.

― Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:43 (nineteen years ago) link

Hi Ally. You never emailed me your email address.

― St. Nicholas (Nick A.), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:44 (nineteen years ago) link

Nabisco, I'd say 'betrayal' and 'loss of ownership' is all over writing and speech. The moment we speak we're betraying ourselves by pouring our fluidity into the ice-mould of language, and 'losing ownership' of our thoughts because language is a common good, not something we own. It thinks us as much as we think it, it owns us as much as we own it. Why even bother with this mania for ownership of non-tangible goods? Is thought really best served by ownership? Are you that vested in the private property system? And why defend the current boundaries, the places people (mostly lawyers and entrepreneurs) mark what they think are the boundaries of 'the self' and 'property' just at the moment when they're in their deepest crisis?

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:45 (nineteen years ago) link

Momus, do you vote? If you ever drive, do you obey the speed limit? Do you pay taxes?

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:49 (nineteen years ago) link

(LAST WORD WOW!)

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:49 (nineteen years ago) link

Information wants to be useless

― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:50 (nineteen years ago) link

it got its wish then

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:51 (nineteen years ago) link

Rethinking the ownership of non-tangible goods (at at time when their use is almost impossible to police) is not the same as 'never following any laws ever', hstencil.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:53 (nineteen years ago) link

(El wordo finito! ARRIBA!)

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:55 (nineteen years ago) link

Listen! Can you hear that? It's the sound of people trading mp3s over on ILM. And that? It's the sound of links from this thread to somebody's flower photo. And that? It's the sound of servers all over the world reproducing the bits and atoms I'm assembling right now with my keyboard. I betray myself 60 times a minute.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:58 (nineteen years ago) link

Rethinking the ownership of non-tangible goods (at at time when their use is almost impossible to police) is not the same as 'never following any laws ever', hstencil.

Possession is 9/10ths of the law, Momus.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:58 (nineteen years ago) link

what does that even mean?

― cozen (Cozen), Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:59 (nineteen years ago) link

That's the law's problem, not ours.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:00 (nineteen years ago) link

By the way, you can use 'I betray myself 60 times a second' in your poem without asking me. It couldn't exist without Godard's definition of cinema -- 'the truth 24 times a second' -- just as his thought couldn't exist without someone else's definition of something else.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:03 (nineteen years ago) link

yknow someone who disagreed with momus here (which isn't really me - fuck a copyright) could dare him to put his money (or the heritage foundation's money i guess really) where his mouth is and go all illegal art on his next album, but i think we all know that even the whisper of 'lawsuit' is enough to make momus blink and cut bait with his principles like it was going out of fashion (which with momus you can be pretty sure it already has). actions speak louder than words and in this arena a million others like jason forrest, danger mouse, even kanye west (who anthony seems to be a bit confused about)(what else is new) are speaking up while momus continues to confuse 'putting up' with 'not shutting up' and hoping noone will notice the difference.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:05 (nineteen years ago) link

Momus paraphrasing is not quoting is not infringing on copyright.

also, this:

That's the law's problem, not ours.

sounds a lot like what George Bush would say regarding Abu Grahib, imo.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:08 (nineteen years ago) link

...go all illegal art on his next album...

didn't he do that already, and pay a hefty financial price for it?

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:08 (nineteen years ago) link

Blount, you're really just trolling, God Bless You! I don't have a heritage foundation. I am illegal, as I explained just a few posts ago, with my art, mp3ing it myself. Lawsuits have not daunted me in the past, though they've all been settled out of court. And Jason Forrest is a friend of mine.

Xpost:

I think a plausible explanation for J0hn's fear and loathing here is that it took the idea of this book to make him realise the self-betrayal implicit in his every post. In something akin to Heidegger's account of 'the Uncanny', he was jolted out of 'posting-as-habit' and suddenly saw posting as vulnerability, self-betrayal, even a kind of unwelcome self-recognition.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:13 (nineteen years ago) link

IIRC, I'm not sure the W*ndy C*rl*s lawsuit was about copyright infringement so much as libel and slander (though while I can see it was [inadvertantly] hurtful to Ms. C*rl*s I honestly don't see why the song in question was libel/slander.)

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:14 (nineteen years ago) link

(Oh, and I've participated in the Future of Music conference in Washington DC and said these very things about copyright from a public stage.)

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:14 (nineteen years ago) link

(Oui oui, l'word fin.)

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:15 (nineteen years ago) link

(I can't discuss the C*rl*s case directly here.)

(Sorry Dan.)

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:16 (nineteen years ago) link

the supposedly libelled/slandered person in question is very very wacky about all sorts of issues, to the point where I won't post her name on the internet if I can help it.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:16 (nineteen years ago) link

(WAAAAH)

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:17 (nineteen years ago) link

(It's understood, Momus. I didn't want you to address it, I just wanted to point that out to stence et al.)

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:17 (nineteen years ago) link

oh cmon stence and momus - grow some fucking balls!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:18 (nineteen years ago) link

i mean libel and slander are even bigger anti-free speech traps than copyrights! don't wimp out on us just cuz your mommy/lawyer sez you hafta!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:19 (nineteen years ago) link

(Um, that wasn't actually directed at hstencil)

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:20 (nineteen years ago) link

(Also Blount, speaking as someone who isn't entirely sure that he doesn't stand in the path of any litigation shitstorm that could come down on ILXOR, shut the fuck up.)

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:20 (nineteen years ago) link

omg lol wtf

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:22 (nineteen years ago) link

oh cmon stence and momus - grow some fucking balls!

Dude blount she made eBay remove a friend's listing of a found sealed copy of the Tron sdtrk, claiming it was a bootleg.

xpost - Dan don't look at the celebrity herp thread, please.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:23 (nineteen years ago) link

(Come to think of Dan, if you get a chance, could you change my post above so it reads "W3ndy C4rl0s" or something?)

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:24 (nineteen years ago) link

Actually, if I could call for some moderate moderation, you might want to put the odd asterisk into W**dy Car**s, Dan, just to be on the safe side.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:24 (nineteen years ago) link

(LAST WORD)
(Basically if some loony is wont to come storming across websites that mention himher and fling out summons left and right, I would like to not invite himher here thanks, you gigantic asshole.)
(LAST WORD)

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:24 (nineteen years ago) link

oh shit, Dan, our supposed-libellee doesn't like references like "himher." That also got my friend in trouble with eBay.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:26 (nineteen years ago) link

(Are you fucking with me now?)
(LAST WORD) (as if)

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:27 (nineteen years ago) link

Thanks. (But you might want to make loony into l**ny. Loonies googling for themselves might not want to be associated with... oh never mind.)

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:29 (nineteen years ago) link

[Link to contentious site removed]

(MOD NOTE: You are such a fucking asshole.)

OH NO I DIDN'T

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:29 (nineteen years ago) link

i am so so sorry

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:30 (nineteen years ago) link

hahahahaha blount, kissed, etc.

Momus still I'd like you to explain why some laws are meant to be flounced (copyright, speed limits, etc.) why some aren't (Geneva conventions, assault statutes, etc.).

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:31 (nineteen years ago) link

speed limits are meant to be flounced cuz that shit ain't natural man!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:33 (nineteen years ago) link

Laws are subject to fashion just like hats are. Also, 'I see the laws made in Washington DC / I think of the ones I consider my favourites...' Also, your nation would not exist without people saying 'Screw King George and his tea tax, that's taking the piss...' Laws judge us, but we also judge laws.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:34 (nineteen years ago) link

xpost to blount - just like copyrights? and homo marriage?

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:35 (nineteen years ago) link

Skipping 732 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.