Gary Numan Digest Sun, 1 Aug 99 Volume 1 : Issue 560 Today's Topics: 'Friendly' Numan Fan Gary Numan Digest V1 #559 lyrics to "Bridge? What Bridge?" NEW cover of Gary Numan's "Cars" Research? Who needs research? The Church of gary Numan: A Dark Celebration The Last Word on Strange Charm. This House Is Cold (2 msgs) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:54:37 +0000 From: "Michael J. Damrath" Subject: 'Friendly' Numan Fan To: Gary Numan Just a quick reply to David B.'s note regarding hearing 'Warriors' in Friendly's. David, I'm beginning to think that someone at Friendly's is a Numan Fan. A few months ago, while I was eating ice cream with my family, 'I Die:You Die' was played on the P.A. I thought I was dreaming at first, but there it was. 'Warriors' and 'I Die:You Die' are not what I would have considered normal, restaurant, canned-music fare. Mike Damrath http://home.earthlink.net/~damrat ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 23:56:09 EDT From: Muzakfemme@aol.com Subject: Gary Numan Digest V1 #559 To: numan@cs.uwp.edu Cool beans :) Who would ever guess that you would hear a Numan song in a Friendly's restaurant? :) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 11:53:18 -0500 From: Valerie Iglar-Mobley Subject: lyrics to "Bridge? What Bridge?" To: The Gary Digest (Is this a party?) Boys, like rain, Cries like 'this time I suppose you know' Boys, like rain, Cries like 'this time I suppose' like This time rain Boys could grieves, too Like I could down tonight I could die Boys like me Cries 'this time I suppose You know I cried' And I'm going into like I sing 'like me' Boys, like rain, Cries 'seems like I suppose This time I rain... no' Boys like me Cries 'I could down' suppose I could rain Save me tonight Boys like me Seems like I could die Scream 'like I know... you' Boys like me Cries 'This-- oh, no' Cries 'I don't know' Like I'm going into like I'm me Boys like down Boys like me Seems like I suppose Boys like me Boys lie down Seems like I suppose Like I'm going into like I'm me now Boys like me Boys lie down, suppose This time rain Boys like down Cries 'seems like boys' suppose This time rain Boys like me Cry 'seems like down' suppose This time me Cries 'no' Boys like me Boys lie down Cries 'I don't know' Cries... (Hey, where is this bridge, anyway?) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 17:03:46 -0400 (EDT) From: TEA Subject: NEW cover of Gary Numan's "Cars" To: numan@cs.uwp.edu Hi there: I'm new to the list. I'm Mark Harrington, a Toronto musician/producer. I have just released a solo CD recording (generally described as punk-pop, but with electronic influence) called "Trash Icon" . This is an enhanced CD (with video clips and HTML) and it happens to include my cover of Gary Numan's "Cars". I guess this is very timely (given the new Fear Factory cover and being 20 yrs later), but I actually started recording it about 2 or 3 years back. I'm hoping some interested NUMAN-ites will go listen the the MP3's or Real Audio clips on my "sounds" page. Here is my homepage: http://www.globalserve.net/~tea ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 02:11:31 -0600 From: "Joey Lindstrom" Subject: Research? Who needs research? To: "Gary Numan" WARNING: Another long rant ahead. This usually happens when my integrity is questioned and/or I get personally insulted. :-) On Thu, 29 Jul 99 01:00:02 CDT, Kev (who appears to have no last name, or else he's paranoid) wrote: >Joey, > >Thanks for your "information", but you are only partly correct i= n >your response. I did a little research on this, and can speak to your >points. Not to make this sound too much like a flame(which some of it = is - >you deserve it), but I would recommend you make sure your ducks are act= ually >ducks before you start lining them up. I think a few free range chicke= ns >got in this last batch. Really? Let's take a good look, shall we? >Your 'interpretation' of copyright is slightly warped and based on what= >appears to be misinformation. Read on and learn a little more. It's based on US and Canadian law and on the concepts of the Berne Convention (to which the USA, Canada, and the UK are all signatories), plus personal knowledge of various court cases that have been decided based on these laws. >First, the software issue you raised. You can make backup copies of >software when the End User License Agreement states you can. Very litt= le >software is permitted to reside on two computers and only be run on one= >This is concurrent licensing and Microsoft no longer permits it in thei= r >licenses (see http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/licensing/faq/shared.asp)= >There is not a specification of the use of the CD Rom format for making= a >backup copy of any given piece of software. Most EUL Agreements imply >backup copies as those made with a backup program, not duplicated outri= ght. >Check your Microsoft products. You will see "DO NOT MAKE ILLEGAL COPIE= S OF >THIS DISK." written right across it. And they are serious, they do >prosecute this type of activity. You're right (and I already stated this) that it's becoming increasingly rare for end user licences to permit installation on multiple computers while only being run on one, but I've installed such software this year (in the course of setting up and maintaining the NuServer). It's still out there, generally created by smaller companies or individuals that haven't been too overcome by greed. :-) But as to Microsoft's EUL statement "Do not make illegal copies of this disk", the key word in that sentence is illegal. Making a duplicate of a CD you've bought and paid for, for your own personal use, is legal. That includes a direct disc-to-disc copy. Most EULA's specifically state that archival copies are okay, but they don't need to. More on this in a moment. >The video duplication ruling I am speaking of is commonly known as the >Betamax ruling from 1983 decided by the United States Supreme Court. T= his >case only addresses "time-shift" recording, which is taping a program a= nd >watching it at a later time. The basic interpretation is, anything oth= er >than taping free programming (not HBO, Cinemax, Pay-per-View)for the >convenience of watching said program at a later date is copyright >infringement. The entire issue was could Sony sell their recorders >(betamax) in the US. Disney and Universal brought the suit to fruition= Right. And what about Adaptec? Why haven't they been sued for releasing "CD Copier Deluxe", which makes "illegal" duplicates so easy? Answer: because these cases are exactly analogous. There are legitimate and fair uses, as well as illegal uses. It's the intent of the user that counts. That's why the feds can't do anything against the Cult Of The Dead Cow for releasing Back Orifice 2000 - there's a legitimate use to that program. You accuse me of doing no research. I've done plenty of research, and one of the items used in my research is this: UNITED STATES CODE TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include - (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. The key here is #4 - if you've already paid for the product, your duplication for personal use doesn't affect the potential market or value of the work. You can't give these copies away or sell them - it is, to quote the above, "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work". Or, as somebody else recently said, "the legal line is drawn at the third party". This section of the US Code is based upon the Berne Convention's Article 9, which reads as follows (and note point #2 carefully): Article 9 (1) Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form. (2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author. (3) Any sound or visual recording shall be considered as a reproduction for the purposes of this Convention. Getting back to Adaptec for a moment: bundled in my "Easy CD Creator Deluxe" package is a program called "CD Spin Doctor". This program specializes in cleaning up bad sound - specifically, from old LP's and cassettes that haven't aged as well as they might have - prior to burning those songs onto customized CD's for your own personal use. Under your definition, this would be flat out illegal - yet, nobody's bothered getting an injunction against Adaptec. Here's a sample from the CD Spin Doctor introduction: Uses for CD Spin Doctor Using CD Spin Doctor, you can make audio CDs of your favorite songs from the following types of music sources: - Record (LP) phonographs-record songs from your favorite LPs to CD and restore them to their original splendor by selecting some recording options to enhance their sound quality. - Cassette tape players-convert songs from your favorite cassette tapes to a CD and play them back in your home or car CD player, or in your CD-ROM drive. - Home stereo CD players-use the CD player attached to your home stereo to record your favorite songs and make your own customized CD-much like making a Best of cassette tape of your favorite songs from LPs. - Stereo tuners and receivers-record radio broadcasts. - Computer CD-ROM drives-record existing music CDs directly from your CD-ROM drive. See Recording from CD-ROM Drives. - Other devices-using a sound card, you can connect other input devices, such as microphones, to your computer and record songs to a CD. - Sound files (also known as Wave files)-store songs on your hard drive first so that you can edit them and apply special recording options. When you are finished customizing the songs, then record them to a CD. WHOA! CHECK THAT OUT! Recording radio broadcasts and burning them onto CD? Perish the thought! Similarly, I doubt very much there are a lot of people out there using this software to clean up vinyl LP's to which they own the copyright. It is assumed, throughout this piece of text, that the material being recorded (and then cleaned up and burned to CD) is stuff that you don't own the copyright to. Furthermore, Adaptec's CD burning software is loaded with all sorts of pop-up warnings telling you that this software is not intended for making illegal copies. But CD Spin Doctor contains no such warnings. Odd, that... In point of fact, the section of US Code Title 17 that I quoted above does not specifically state that making duplicates for personal use is OK. But it's IMPLIED, and the courts HAVE taken that view. It's still somewhat murky, though, and Adaptec's CD burning software includes the caveat that if you're duping a disc that you don't own the copyright of (or don't have permission to dupe), you "may" be violating copyright. But the courts don't back up the record labels here - they back up the individual dupers. Usually, if a case does go to trial, it's because there's something else involved, ie: there's suspicion that the dupes were sold or given away, etc. I have a duplicate of the "Outland" CD here. I also have an original copy. My original had gotten scratched and one track, "Whisper", skipped badly. I ripped the other tracks, made an analog-to-digital transfer of "Whisper", and burned it all onto a new CD, which I placed in the original jewel box (and put the original CD in a safe place). IRS Records, or EMI or Capitol or whoever the hell holds this copyright, is *NOT* going to sue me for this, because they cannot prove I've done them any harm or potential harm. Nor would they care even if US Code Title 17 flat out forbade this activity (assuming I was a US resident, and assuming there were no fair-use provisions): I'm "small potatoes", not worth going after. Another thought occurs: you might argue that my copying of "Outland" constitutes harm to the copyright holders, because I might otherwise have BOUGHT A NEW COPY (and thus padded some coffers). True enough... but what if, instead, I'd gone out and bought some of that CD repair goop that you buff into your CD's to make them playable again? What if this wasn't a CD, but a cassette? What if, when the tape broke, I simply went out and bought some splicing tape and a razor blade and spliced it back together myself? In these cases, have I "harmed" the copyright holder by not buying a new copy? Better dump your stock in Ampex, then, cuz they're goin' DOWN... >Regarding audio only recordable CDs, there is a line of CDs designed >specifically for audio only. This is known as the CD-R DA format. Mos= t >people use the CD-R format, which can record data and or music/DVD. Se= e >this site (http://www.wyco.com/wyco/wyplda02.htm) if you doubt the exis= tence >of CD-DA. Incidentally, there is another format you can re-record whic= h is >like a CD-RW but can be read by ANY machine. (CD-RW can only be read i= n a >CD burner or CD-RW capable drive or player. If I came off sounding like I doubted the existence of this type of disc, I apologize - what I meant to say is that I hadn't heard of them, which is not to say that they couldn't possibly exist. I'm relatively new to CD recordable technology. I do know that most CD players, including most (but not all!) older players, will handle CD-R's, although the older ones sometimes have problems with them (ie: difficulty seeking tracks, etc.) Pretty much any player built in the last four years should have no difficulty with them at all. As for the CD-R DA's - the possibility has been raised that the Canadian levy on recordable audio media may only apply to tapes and these particular type of discs, with regular CD-R's being exempted. Time will tell. >You may know in Canada what constitutes copyright infringement, but eve= n >your knowledge of this is questionable, based on your supposed "knowled= ge" >of the Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC) levy on blank audio >sources in Canada. The levy does not go into effect until Dec 31, 1999= , >unless the five companies that make up CPCC arrive at a decision earlie= r >than Dec 31. The last I had heard was Jan 1 1999, then this was changed to July 1 1999 OR POSSIBLY December 31st. Here's a short sample of a letter they (the CPCC) wrote to the Copyright Board of Canada earlier this year: " One of the first substantive issues we have addressed is that of the retroactivity of the tariff. Many objectors to the tariff have expressed concern that, under the terms of the Copyright Act, the levy on blank audio recording media came into effect on January 1, 1999. However, until the Board renders its decision, the importers and manufacturers of blank audio recording media will not know to what categories of blank audio recording media the levy will apply, or whether the collectives will implement further special use provisions. In light of these uncertainties, the collectives have agreed that they will not seek to collect the levy on blank audio recording media sold before the date the Board renders its decision, or before December 31st, 1999, whichever date is earlier." I had read elsewhere, but now cannot seem to locate the relevent information, that the Board had indicated it would hand down a decision by July 1st 1999, thus my earlier July 1 assertion. Sure would be nice if I could prove that, though. The indication now is that they'll hand down their decision on or near December 31st. These things are fluid and my earlier statement was based on research I'd done four months ago. >Copyright law is NOT relatively uniform among all nations. Your CPCC i= s an >example. They appear to have amended Canada's copyright law from 1997,= and >give permission to make copies of music for personal use. "They", the CPCC, did nothing of the sort - the government of Canada, in conjunction with the Copyright Board, did. "They" are a group of people who will benefit from the levy. Furthermore, copyright law is indeed "relatively" (that being the key word) uniform, but there are certainly some differences. Signatories to the Berne Convention pledge that their national copyright laws will be consistent with the Convention, which in turn allows certain amounts of latitude. It permits, for example, the US Code's vague "Fair Use" provisions as well as Canada's flat-out statement that home copying is just groovy (as long as you pay a levy, even on discs you plan to use for the distribution of your own work) Speaking of which, the Canadian law in question is Bill C-32. I've not been able to track down the full text of this, but here's something that was on Canadian Heritage's website (they're a part of the government): Until Parliament enacted An Act to amend the Copyright Act (Bill C-32), individuals who made copies of sound recordings of musical works for private use were liable to be found to have infringed copyright. Studies showed that the private copying of sound recordings was a widespread practice resulting in losses to copyright holders (composers, authors, performers and producers) in terms of lost sales of such sound recordings. The private copying provisions of Bill C-32, adopted in April 1997, changed this. The provisions, brought into force on March 19, 1998, essentially legalize the copying of sound recordings by individuals for private use, but in return establish a levy to compensate copyright holders. The levy has been referred to as "a tax on blank audio recording media," but it is not a tax. A tax is collected by Government to augment its revenues, while this levy will be paid by manufacturers and importers to collective societies that represent copyright holders; the Government is not involved in the collection of the levy. Approximately 40 countries, including most G-7 and European Union members, have introduced comparable legislative measures to address the issue of private copying of sound recordings. My own personal view here is that, while private copying may indeed be a "widespread practice", the resulting "losses" are unprovable - the vast, vast majority of such copying is for private use by the person who paid for the original recording. There's no "loss" here - indeed, there seems to be a lot of paranoia involved here but very little in terms of cold, hard facts. > The United States >has not given any such permission. It is something we have just done a= s >consumers. And the courts have repeatedly backed those consumers. >The statement that we cannot be held responsible is not true. I repeat, the courts have repeatedly backed consumers. >Our RIAA here in the lower 48 have aggressively opposed permissive copy= ing >in any form of copyrighted music. Bands such as Aerosmith have taken a= firm >stand against CD copies, as well as proliferation of MP3. Fine. And I'll never buy another Aerosmith CD again. I'll vote with my wallet, thank you. If those bastards don't want me to make a tape of their disc to play in the car, then they can keep their tapes and CD's and I'll just listen to 'em when they occasionally pop up on the radio, thank you. How much money are they making from me now? >And for those who are saying "alright, enough of this in the digest, >already", we haven't even touched the issue of duplicating cover art an= d >pictures with a scanner..... The same arguments apply. And while not specifically about Gary, it's an issue of importance to Gary and his fans... after all, we're still actually talking about duping Numan's CD's (as I admitted to earlier). >Joey, clean your messy desktop, do a little research before you "explai= n" to >me what is legal and illegal regarding copyright laws, and then you wil= l see >the point. If that doesn't work, cut your hair a little shorter to see= the >actual point. Jam it up your ass, you greasy little maggot. I've done plenty of research, as shown above. I'll expect your apology about the same time hell freezes over. Insofar as Canadian law is concerned, I'm flat-out right. Insofar as US law is concerned, I "may be" right. The law is vague, but there are lots of legal precedents that back me up - and there seems to be no movement afoot to amend Title 17 to clamp down on those crafty little buggers who engage in home-taping. But even if I'm wrong: 1) So what? Nobody's going to sue you for duping your own CD's for your own use. PERIOD. 2) There's certainly nothing immoral or unethical about it - nobody gets hurt. The upshot of all this is: go ahead and make personal dupes and do so without a guilty conscience. Nobody's gonna touch you, and you're not hurting anyone. And that, Kev Whateveryernameis, is what this argument was all about. / From the messy desktop of Joey Lindstrom / Email: Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU or joey@lindstrom.com / Phone: +1 403 313-JOEY / FAX: +1 413 643-0354 (yes, 413 not 403) / Visit The NuServer! http://www.GaryNumanFan.NU / Visit The Webb! http://webb.GaryNumanFan.NU / / My girlfriend's so intense... She woke me up the other night and asked, / "If you could tell exactly when and how you were going to die, would you / want to know?" "Heck no," I said, "Why?" "Doesn't matter, just go back / to sleep..." / --Steven Wright ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 16:08:32 EDT From: JColl81871@aol.com Subject: The Church of gary Numan: A Dark Celebration To: numan@cs.uwp.edu Hello Numanoids! Jim Collins here reminding everyone that I am still in the studio working my heart out on my Gary Numan tribute CD called The Church of Gary Numan: A Dark Celebration. I work on it every waking moment (and sometimes in my sleep!) and my wife isn't too pleased about that! But, she'll get over it. So far, I've recorded tracks to a puchy, energetic guitar driven version of Cars, a jazzy piano centered version of Cars, a techno-rave version of You Are In My Vision, an accoustic guitar version of You Are In My Vision, and a guitar-rock-oriented Jo the Waiter. I'm working on other songs from his First Album through Exile. I hope to have this done in the near future. Anyone interested in comments or ideas, feel free to E-mail me. Goodbye for now. Its back to the cold, dark studio for me! Jim Collins Ohio, USA JCOLL81871@AOL.COM ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 12:01:33 +0400 From: "The Tik Tok Man" Subject: The Last Word on Strange Charm. To: "Numan Digest" True Numanoidz will know this: Strange Charm is fucking great! So there. TikTokMan Moscow A proud member of Strange People Like Us. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 21:58:26 +0100 From: vickers@netcomuk.co.uk Subject: This House Is Cold To: Gary Numan Thank you, Ben, for the lyrics for "This House Is Cold". I think this is such a superb track. I really love luxuriating in the sound with earphones on. A couple of years ago, I thought, "This can't fail to impress my daughter, who would buy anything with Faith No More or Pearl Jam written on it, but was convinced Gary Numan was irrelevant. I set the track to go, put the earphones on her, and let her swim in the magical sounds. I was EXCITED for her, because I knew she was having such a treat. After about a minute and a half she looked at me with weary resignation in her eyes and said, "How much longer ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 22:00:19 +0100 From: vickers@netcomuk.co.uk Subject: This House Is Cold To: Gary Numan does it go on for?" Paddy Vickers ------------------------------ End of Gary Numan Digest ****************************** _______________________________________________________________________ _____ ____ ____ _____ _____ / \ | | / \ / \ / \ / \ | |-----| |-----| | |-----| |-----| | | | G | | A | | | R | | Y | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----| |-----| | |-----| |-----| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | N | E | W | S |=====| | | | | | | | & | | | | | | | \_____/ I | N | F | O | | | | is produced and distributed by Derek Langsford dlangs@sunstroke.sdsu.edu -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to the messages in this list, mail to: numan@cs.uwp.edu If you want to be removed, or someone wants to be added, you can mail to numan-request@cs.uwp.edu ----------------- The Gary Numan Digest is brought to you via Datta Production and Development, 905 97th Street, Kenosha, WI 53143 USA datta@cs.uwp.edu and computer resources courtesy of University of Wisconsin-Parkside and Datta Production and Development. All of the opinions in this digest belong to the respective authors and do not necessarily agree with those of Datta Production and Development. Datta Production and Development is not affiliated with University Of Wisconsin - Parkside or the University of Wisconsin System. --------------------------------------------------------------------------