And meanwhile, when actual child abuse goes on, "the system" just lets the kids go right back to the abusive parent. I've seen that happen in the case of obvious, blatant physical abuse with obvious, blatant scars on the kid's skin. Somehow, no one noticed those.

I do have to wonder, however, about the lack of calliopes in the ensemble. Don't people hate calliopes?

#49 - AAAAAAAGH! I have perfect pitch, and this causes physical pain.

Damn - I'd thought of composing a piece for accordion, bagpipes, and tuba, but these guys beat me to it. This is hilarious. I burst out laughing when the soprano started rapping and kept giggling throughout.

My stance is that the 3rd party selling the distributed notes, taken by paying students of the university, is ethically wrong. I also believe it may still be legally wrong, #5, because universities own the copyright to works created within their walls. I know this is a FACT when it comes to student film. I wonder if this is applicable to the prof's lectures. Or (this is a stretch) if the performance of the lecture is copyright-able.

It's not. Universities do own the copyright to copyrightable works created within their walls (whether by express contract, or by the works-for-hire doctrine), but a purely oral work such as a lecture is just not protected by copyright. To get copyright protection for a work, it needs to be "fixed in a tangible medium of expression".

Lulu - it's true that if the lecture were recorded verbatim by the student, then it would be "fixed" and therefore copyrightable - but who takes notes verbatim? You could make that argument for audio recording, true, but not for class notes.

Since the professor's lectures are, presumably, oral and not recorded, he has no copyright in them to begin with. We just studied this in our Copyright Law class - the professor used that very example.

Now, mind you, if he is reading them verbatim off a printout (or recording the lectures), then they are protected by copyright - but how many professors really do that?

He might have a better chance with applying an anti-bootlegging statute (which is not in the Copyright Act), but I'm not sure how far he'd get with that.

And Nick D. - copyright protects original expression fixed in a tangible medium; if it's not original, or if it's not fixed in a tangible medium of expression, it doesn't matter how much labor he put in. There is a case that's exactly on point - I'll look it up and post it. (thanks to BoingBoing for helping me study for my Copyright Law exam!)

Ah yes - welcome to the Soviet Union, where certain words are not OK. Next step: anyone who does enter "abortion" into that search engine gets automatically entered into a blacklist. Or something like that.

To all of you who are outraged - go volunteer for your friendly local abortion clinic. They need you now more than ever.

One that I saw elsewhere said "SANDWICH" - as in "knuckle sandwich", I suppose.

Those farm towns in the middle of nowhere are desperate for entertainment, so anyone will be welcome.

--------

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement for your side, is it? Pretty much bolsters my argument, no?

Not really. Why? One must start somewhere. I'm not saying that you have to stay in the farm town in the middle of nowhere - just that you start there. It's a much better environment in which you can perfect your skills, learn your instrument, and (if you're good) really shine.

As I was saying, it worked for me. I started out in a small town, playing with a bunch of very kind and very enthusiastic amateurs. I was a much better musician than the amateurs; they noticed my talent, and helped me in every way they could. After a year, I played at the biggest festival in this particular musical genre. The year after that, I was invited to come back as a performer, and to play at other festivals as well. I play my first 2-hour solo concert in July.

Before moving to that small town, I lived in San Francisco, which - as I later discovered - had a thriving music scene in that particular genre. But I couldn't break into it then. I can now.

How about divorcing beauty from commerce? Oh wait that would require sacrifices.

Sure. But you have to get your food and shelter somehow. You can either make a living from your art, or make a living from something else, or acquire a patron who will support you.

Personally, I think that there's nothing wrong with having a day job and "divorcing beauty from commerce" - a lucrative-enough day job can make it possible for you to not worry about whether or not your art can feed you. However, such a day job requires a significant time investment, which leaves you with less time to pursue your art.

Also, I think there's value in considering something other than your personal artistic vision when creating your art. Art is about communication - it's about what the audience will like, not just about what you like. The popular taste is often derided, but the public is not stupid. The art that survives the test of time is often the "popular" stuff of its day.

I'd buy one in a millisecond, if I could find one that is:

1) cheap enough for me; I'm not paying $400.
2) capable of displaying Cyrillic text; half of my e-books are in Russian.
3) capable of displaying DRM'd books in several different formats; a lot of my e-books are in the PalmReader format, and encrypted. I know, I know.
4) has a lot of books available for it, not just the brainless bestseller-of-the-month.
5) ergonomically designed so I don't strain my hand pressing those buttons - the Sony Reader, especially, has hard-to-press buttons, and I have repetitive stress injuries in my hands.

I'm waiting for such a gadget with a lot of eagerness; I move a lot, and every move involves heavy book boxes, and I'd love to not lug as many heavy book boxes anymore. But the Kindle is not it, so I'm not getting one.

I think that one must start slowly, and let one's career grow bit by bit - which means that for the first few years, you'll be making no money at all, or very little.

Incidentally, I will strenuously disagree with the "must start out in a major city" idea. I lived in San Francisco for years and years and my music career was nonexistent. It's too hard to break into an established music scene. Then, I moved to the middle of nowhere, met people, impressed them (easy to be a big fish in a small pond...), made connections, and now I play in all sorts of places, and the last time I was in SF I got myself interviewed on the radio. Those farm towns in the middle of nowhere are desperate for entertainment, so anyone will be welcome. And some of the folks in those farm towns know other folks in bigger cities, who know other folks in even bigger cities.

But yes, I also only have about $20 worth of material for my True Fans to buy, at the moment. They do buy it, bless their hearts. And I am working on a new CD, which those lovely folks will probably also want to buy. But I'm not sure I can manage $100 worth of material a year.

It does kinda sorta work. I've seen it work in an online forum, where most of the participants pitched in to help one of the participants self-publish and distribute a book of his stories. And it wasn't even 1000 true fans - more like 100.

That's the business model I'm going for as a musician. I'm far from having 1000 true fans yet, but there are a few folks out there who would buy my next CD or collection of sheetmusic sight unseen - or for that matter, even pay for me to come and give a concert. And why shouldn't I be nice to those folks and make them happy by playing for them? They're not demanding that I make T-shirts or stickers for them, or that I change the kind of music I play - they just want me to do what I'm already doing. Sounds like a pretty sweet arrangement to me.

I can't imagine what it must be like for the musicians whose songs are used this way. Yipes. Have there been any reactions?

Be careful, though; the 39dollarglasses people are not always competent. Last time I ordered from them, they sent me such a horrendous pair of glasses that I had eye pain and headaches from wearing them. I went to the local optometrist and got them measured, and the interpupillary distance was off by a significant amount - enough to screw up one's eyes.

I got my next pair of glasses from the optometrist in question, paid a lot more than $39, and consider my lesson learned.

It's sad. I used to play the piano in nursing homes, and it was just sad to see all those old folks - some of them with perfectly working minds - abandoned and left to rot. They were happy to see me, not because I was such a good pianist, but because I was young and because it broke up the monotony of their day. In such a place, anything, no matter how silly, is better than just sitting there staring at the wall. I'm sure balloon art works similarly; while I'm not sure I'd want a balloon hat when I'm 80, I think I'd prefer it to sitting in a puddle of my own urine staring at the wall.

After playing at that nursing home a couple of times, I made a solemn vow to my parents that they would never see the inside of a nursing home. I meant it then, and I still mean it.

That is amazing; I actually verified it in Paint, and it is the same color, but my eyes still don't agree. Wow.

How do Mississippians get fat? Easy. There's no healthy food to be found there. The local restaurants all think that ketchup is a vegetable. The local conception of a salad is a few anemic iceberg lettuce leaves, smothered in ranch dressing. Everything is fried and greasy and washed down with gallons of high-fructose corn syrup. Of course they get fat - why wouldn't they? Anyone would get fat on that kind of diet.

Instead of passing oppressive laws that accomplish nothing, why not subsidize restaurant owners willing to serve actual food instead of greasy junk? Why not encourage supermarket owners to get healthier, and tastier, fare in their stores? People eat what is in front of them; give them healthier options and they'll eat healthy.

And quite honestly, this is not even "nanny state" legislation - it's dictatorship, pure and simple. A nanny state, at least, tries to provide services to its citizens. There is no service aspect involved in banning fat people from restaurants.

Congratulations! She's beautiful.

Why isn't this child abuse, and why isn't the security worker in question being prosecuted for child abuse?

This is great! The next fly I swat will get a grand burial, complete with eulogy. I'm not sure I need the kit for it; I think it will be a more meaningful event if it does not come from a prefabricated kit. I can write the eulogy myself. My fellow mourners and I will weep copiously.

Yup. I'd want a copy of the mall policy and the instructions in question, too. I would also send the mall a polite letter asking them to publicly apologize and retract all accusations. And I might very well sue them. The citizenry needs to fight back against these accusations, and lawyers are good to fight back with.

Music as a total will quite probably bring in less revenue in the future, and much music will no longer be. A fair chunk of it will be "good riddance" stuff, but some of it will be music some of us cherish - or would have cherished. True, some new music will bloom, but I think the net total will be a minus. Just one man's uneducated guess based on his own stingyness vis-a-vis shareware he uses ...

I think the gain outweighs the loss, and that the net result will be more music being produced. Music may bring in less revenue, but it also now costs a lot less to produce it. It is now entirely possible to record a near-professional-quality CD in one's own living room, and not worry too much about making one's entire living from it. Musicians who can't get the major studios interested in their music can now make their own CD's. The result will be more variety, more individuality, more diversity in the types of music being produced. Compare the offerings on CDBaby with the offerings by Sony or any other RIAA-affiliated company. CDBaby is a lot more eclectic and, quite frankly, a lot more interesting.

Skeeter - no, of course it's not professional-quality quite yet. But it's not bad. People are willing to pay good money for it - I've sold enough of these discs to recoup my costs and then some. I've even had it featured on a radio station. Listen to my recording at www.cdbaby.com/migachyov . As a professional, you'll probably be able to find numerous flaws in the recording; but for all that, it's not bad for a $500 investment.

A lot of my friends are also making home recordings, or going to recording studios themselves and producing their own discs. Ragtime musicians, especially, cannot get the record industry interested in their music even if they wanted to (who listens to ragtime these days?). Most of them go to recording studios, pay for studio time, and make recordings which they then sell at ragtime festivals across the country. To my semi-educated ear, all of them sound quite good. Another friend of mine is a folk musician; she recorded her own CD in her living room. That also sounds really good.

Sure, if you've got something hideously complicated to record - a full orchestra and a 200-member choir - you need to call in the professionals. But for a little solo piano recording? Nonsense.

Still, the revisionism is interesting. And technically (speaking as a law student - this is not actual legal advice yet), she is right. You only have the right to copy your own CD to mp3's because the record labels are kind enough to let you. If they decide to stop letting you, they can - any kind of copying (even the copying of a file into RAM when you run it on your computer) is a violation of copyright law if it is unauthorized. So, what we see is that they've decided to stop letting us.

As an indie musician, though, I am tickled pink. The RIAA has shot itself in the foot again. The more silly they get, and the more they scare off customers, the more customers indie musicians like me are going to get. My CD is Creative Commons licensed. Copy it all you like. Make copies for all your friends. Put it up on Kazaa or any other filesharing service. You've got my permission. I will be happy to give said permission in writing to anyone who wants my CD.

As for angels wanting to fund projects for young artists - I don't want your funding, and I don't want your control over my music. I made my CD myself. I didn't even go to a recording studio. I bought $500 worth of recording equipment, spent a month or so learning how to use it, set it up and recorded my music. I did not have to give up one iota of creative control - it's all mine, even the cover art. I never had to beg a record producer to produce my music. I never had to send out unsolicited submissions to anyone. I never had to sign any kind of contract with anyone. And I don't want to. I'm doing just fine, thank you very much.