Excelsior the book

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (832 of them)
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

Laws = hats
Speed limits = trucker laws
Williamsburg speed limits = ironic trucker laws

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

that joke = weak

cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:36 (nineteen years ago) link

Also, your nation would not exist without people saying 'Screw King George and his tea tax, that's taking the piss...'

yeah but we dumped your shitty tea in the Boston Harbor instead of stealing it, see?

hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:36 (nineteen years ago) link

It would have been cleverer to drink it first. (I also think Bill Drummond should have spent the million quid before burning it.)

Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:37 (nineteen years ago) link

Laws are subject to fashion just like hats are.

also, this was exactly my point. If the laws no longer apply, then change them.

hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:38 (nineteen years ago) link

tea makes me sick, dude.

hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:38 (nineteen years ago) link

I don't believe you were there in person.

Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:39 (nineteen years ago) link

even sweet tea???????

cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:40 (nineteen years ago) link

no I wasn't there but I am quintessentially American for hating tea.

xpost - my hatred of iced tea is one of my few non-Southern attributes. I can't explain it.

hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:41 (nineteen years ago) link

Can we get some bits of Excelsior The Book into Excelsior The Thread (you know, the one that cannibalises other threads without permission and relays the results to servers all over the world)?

Momus (Momus), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:41 (nineteen years ago) link

why can't you object to some laws while not objecting to ALL laws?

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.

That was my take on it, too.

oops (Oops), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:58 (nineteen years ago) link

why can't you object to some laws while not objecting to ALL laws?

you have a point, but I was really responding to Momus's implied "all property laws are bad" position more than anything.

hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 20:59 (nineteen years ago) link

One thing. Momus, Milo, etc. -- I seriously wish you'd quit pretending, contrary to everything said on this thread, that people who care about this issue are somehow trying to stamp endless ownership on every fucking drip of sense that leaks out of their mouths or fingers. The vast majority of what we do goes out into the ether and we need to be at peace with that fact: no fucking duh, guys! None of this changes any of the following facts:

(a) There are conceivably instances in which something somebody posts here could wind up somewhere that he or she would seriously, for any number of reasons, prefer it not to wind up.

(b) On the off chance that such a thing were to happen, it'd be totally cool and convenient if that person could do something about it. Not even because of ownership or fairness or anything like that, but because, duh, they'd like it not to be there.

(c) The best way to provide people with that chance is to say -- just to say, for the record! -- that everything on this server is copyright-the-poster, and to just stick with that idea rather than bending and equivocating and talking about Kanye West and fair use and telling people not to be upset. It doesn't even need to be a legal issue. It can be a simple social issue: a lot of people would prefer ILX to be the kind of place where it was clear that disseminating people's posts in all sorts of directions is, I dunno, frowned upon. Like Tuomas said: the same way it's understood, in daily interaction, that recording your friends and playing the tapes willy-nilly is just generally not cool.

(d) And chances are, that in 99.9% of the cases that something gets reprinted outside of ILX -- quotes, posts, paraphrases, whole threads, little "hey look at this" cut-n-pastes like we ourselves do all the time -- nobody will be upset. Nobody will care. We all understand that information works that way, and we all understand that our posts are public and will likely flow here and there. But on that slim .1% chance that something winds up in a place that someone has good reason to really, honestly not want it, he or she will at least be able to respond by asserting some clearly backed-up rights.

If people are shocked because they think this book of Mark's was clearly one of those 99.9% who-cares instances, then sure: it is. My guess is that people reacted strongly because this instance seemed to serve no clear purpose whatsoever except to bring up the whole copyright issue. Turns out in the end that he had a perfectly good reason -- testing the printing service -- but as it stood it looked like a simple test of principle.

nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 24 June 2004 21:24 (nineteen years ago) link

people also react because self-martyrdom is unattractive even when there's a good reason behind it

ron (ron), Thursday, 24 June 2004 23:04 (nineteen years ago) link

I was really responding to Momus's implied "all property laws are bad" position more than anything

momus isnt saying the laws are bad. he's saying that with the way things are now, they are meaningless. so we might as well face the reality of everything being up for grabs.

Sir Chaki McBeer III (chaki), Thursday, 24 June 2004 23:18 (nineteen years ago) link

(FINAL WORD ALL RIGHT)

VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 June 2004 23:20 (nineteen years ago) link

Chaki, Momus is a Socialist.

hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 23:21 (nineteen years ago) link

i thought he was Scottish

Sir Chaki McBeer III (chaki), Thursday, 24 June 2004 23:21 (nineteen years ago) link

he is a Scottish Socialist, yes. Jury's still out on whether he'll ever become a So-Cal Scottish Socialist.

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

i was jk.

Sir Chaki McBeer III (chaki), Thursday, 24 June 2004 23:24 (nineteen years ago) link

so was I.

hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 23:26 (nineteen years ago) link


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