Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

David Bowie on Music, Copyrights, Distribution

CmdrTaco posted more than 12 years ago | from the spiders-from-mars dept.

Music 403

EddydaSquige writes "In this New York Times article David Bowie talks about his new album, distribution deal with Sony, and how he's "fully confident that copyright, for instance, will no longer exist in 10 years, and authorship and intellectual property is in for such a bashing." Do you think the Bowie machine has the power to make the music industry see the light?"

cancel ×

403 comments

FIRST POST!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Espectr0 (577637) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668535)

Sorry, always wanted to do that. Lol

Re:FIRST POST!!! (-1)

Serial Troller (556155) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668599)

What, did you expect a million bucks and 40 virgins or something? Jeezus, get a life.

FTM on Beer, Brussel Sprouts, Sex - Netscape (-1)

Fecal Troll Matter (445929) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668644)

Love beer and sex. Hate brussel sprouts and you.

imagine (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668536)

a beowulf cluster of david bowies

whut? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668538)

david bowie sucks

Re:whut? (-1)

handybundler (232934) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668551)

no. no .n o. maybe back in the 70's when he was vry gy but not now. Hot model wife. Plus I heard that he was teaming up with Page Hamilton from Helemt as his guitarist. i think Bowie r0x0rs

He is pretty much spot on... (4, Insightful)

-douggy (316782) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668539)

Sure the artist should be credited for the creation of a song but why should a corporation I dont care about make 5 times the money the writer does. IP and copywrite needs a complete overhaul. Fair use people

It is about time the bigger well established artists started acting like this. They make far more money personing than via RIAA cds

Re:He is pretty much spot on... (2)

jackb_guppy (204733) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668562)

Agreed

A person creates and created, get credit for and owns the work they do.

A corporation is not a person. A corporation unto itself creates nothing.

Re:He is pretty much spot on... (3, Interesting)

Apreche (239272) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668646)

I agree that the person who makes the music should be the one to hold the copyright. And that the corporation should not make more money than the artist does. However, the reason the corporation can do this is not because of flaws in copyright laws (although these laws are flawed). It is because the artist signed a contract with the record company. The problem is that signing a contract with a major record company is the only way to "make it big" as a musician. That's what needs to be fixed. The internet helps that, but not enough.

Re:He is pretty much spot on... (3, Insightful)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668715)

That's not enough. It's not even the right discussion.

Above all else, any enlargement of copyright beyond none at all has to be justified in terms of an even greater benefit secured to the public than they would've enjoyed had the enlargement not occured. Benefits to the public must take the form of BOTH: the creation of more works, either original or derivative or some combination, and the ability to freely enjoy works in any sense, ranging from freely obtaining them, to being able to use them, modify them, copy them, republish them, etc.

Thus the mere act of creation of a work isn't sufficient to justify their 'owning' it.

Re:He is pretty much spot on... (2, Insightful)

gandy909 (222251) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668762)

...Thus the mere act of creation of a work isn't sufficient to justify their 'owning' it.

Sure it is....right up to the moment it gets played for the public....

Re:He is pretty much spot on... (2)

samael (12612) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668830)

A corporation is a collection of people. These people arrange to buy things from the people that produce them.

Nobody forces the people to sell them to the corporations. Nobody forces you to deal with them.

Re:He is pretty much spot on... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668614)

Thank you captain obvious!

Re:He is pretty much spot on... (1)

Dexx (34621) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668640)

"They make far more money personing than via RIAA cds"

Hence why they can afford to do this - they're firmly established big artists. A lot of the small bands I've met are still striving for the record deal they need to get bigger.

Re:He is pretty much spot on... (2, Insightful)

artemis67 (93453) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668749)

why should a corporation I dont care about make 5 times the money the writer does.

Because of the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.

Does it seem unfair? Sure, until you think about the alternative: Artists establishing a hit record without the record companies and without borrowing money.

Yes, the cost of capital to the bands are outrageous. However, given the fact that creating a hit band is a longshot at best, there is a high level of risk on the money loaned. The higher the risk, the higher the cost of capital. That's how capitalism works.

Of course, that's what makes the internet so great when it comes to music distribution. Like Bowie said, bands have a chance to elimnate the record company completely and build their audiences via word of mouth and downloands on the net. We are a long ways off from that becoming a viable model, though.

Does he ? (1)

cOdEgUru (181536) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668541)

Do you think the Bowie machine has the power to make the music industry see the light?"

No. But I believe he has the foresight which many among the musicians and the industry honchos doesnt have.

CLIT sez (-1)

handybundler (232934) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668542)

Hi. FP. CLIT. Props to all fizrt postang hot tubbers! Eat it.

no NYT acct. (2, Interesting)

morgajel (568462) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668543)

/me goes out and buys every david bowie CD he can find
Rock on david.

Re:no NYT acct. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668565)

... the record co. will get most of the money for that.

1) download every david bowie cd you can find
2) burn it to a CD
3) send the money you would have paid the record co. for his albums directly to bowie himself
4) tell your friends to do the same

Re:no NYT acct. (1, Troll)

Clue4All (580842) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668581)

You forgot the all-important step:

5.) stand up and should "Let's dance!"

Re:no NYT acct. (2, Informative)

jcoy42 (412359) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668584)

Try this [majcher.com] .

Re:no NYT acct. (1)

gnugnugnu (178215) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668711)

mod parent up

Registering sucks [majcher.com]

thanks

Registering Sucks, shameless Karma Whoring (0, Redundant)

gnugnugnu (178215) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668719)

the full story for those who dont want to register

David Bowie, 21st-Century Entrepreneur
By JON PARELES

IN a Manhattan rehearsal studio, Gerry Leonard seemed to be noodling on his guitar as the rest of David Bowie's band waited. He played some sustained notes and a bit of minor-key arpeggio; he worked his effects pedals, adding echoes. A digital stutter entered the pattern, and suddenly the music gelled into "Sunday," the song that opens Mr. Bowie's new album, "Heathen," which will be released on Tuesday.

Advertisement

Chords from a phantom chorus wafted from a keyboard, and Mr. Bowie intoned: "It's the beginning of an end, and nothing has changed. Everything has changed."

Mr. Bowie sang somberly about searching for signs of life, about fear and hope. At the end of the song, he shivered like someone coming out of a trance. "Ahhh," he said and grinned. "Good morning!" It was just after 11 a.m. and Mr. Bowie, 55, had already worked out at the gym and given an extended interview before starting the day's rehearsal for his summer tour.

Lean and affable, he was wearing a skintight gray T-shirt and stylishly understated gray pants. His gaze, with different-colored eyes because of a childhood accident that paralyzed his left pupil, has grown less disconcerting; he laughs easily. When asked what he considered the central point of his work, he said, "I write about misery" and chuckled.

Visions of cataclysm and professional aplomb: that's Mr. Bowie's life in his fourth decade as a rock star. One of rock's most astute conceptualists since the 1960's, he has toyed with the possibilities of his star persona, turned concerts into theater and fashion spectacles, and periodically recharged his songs with punk, electronics and dance rhythms. Now he has emerged as one of rock's smartest entrepreneurs.

"Heathen" is the first album from Mr. Bowie's own recording company, Iso, which has major-label distribution through Sony. In 1997, he sold $55 million of Bowie Bonds backed by his song royalties; the next year, he founded the technology company Ultrastar and his own Internet service provider-cum-fan club, Bowienet (davidbowie.com). In a nod to his art-school background, his bowieart.com sells promising students' work without the high commissions of terrestrial galleries.

His deal with Sony is a short-term one while he gets his label started and watches the Internet's effect on careers. "I don't even know why I would want to be on a label in a few years, because I don't think it's going to work by labels and by distribution systems in the same way," he said. "The absolute transformation of everything that we ever thought about music will take place within 10 years, and nothing is going to be able to stop it. I see absolutely no point in pretending that it's not going to happen. I'm fully confident that copyright, for instance, will no longer exist in 10 years, and authorship and intellectual property is in for such a bashing."

"Music itself is going to become like running water or electricity," he added. "So it's like, just take advantage of these last few years because none of this is ever going to happen again. You'd better be prepared for doing a lot of touring because that's really the only unique situation that's going to be left. It's terribly exciting. But on the other hand it doesn't matter if you think it's exciting or not; it's what's going to happen."

With his wife, Iman, he has a 22-month-old daughter, Alexandria, for whom he's keeping to a minimum his time away from home in Manhattan. When Mr. Bowie signed on as a headliner for Moby's Area:Two tour this summer, he made sure the schedule allowed him to return home between each of the six East Coast dates. He is also organizing, and performing at, Meltdown, a contemporary music, film and visual arts festival in London. (One songwriter he booked is Norman Carl Odam, known as the Legendary Stardust Cowboy, from whom he took Ziggy Stardust's last name in the 1970's; on "Heathen," he sings the Cowboy's "Gemini Spacecraft," about an astronaut obsessed with a girl he left behind.)

Mr. Bowie no longer expects to compete with performers in their 20's. "I'm well past the age where I'm acceptable," he said. "You get to a certain age and you are forbidden access. You're not going to get the kind of coverage that you would like in music magazines, you're not going to get played on radio and you're not going to get played on television. I have to survive on word of mouth."

HIS fans among musicians, including Moby and Nine Inch Nails, have toured with Mr. Bowie, introducing him to a younger generation.

Back in 1990, Mr. Bowie tried to jettison his past. He billed an arena tour as the last time he would play his old hits. "I really did think I meant that," he said. "I got quite a way into the 90's before I started thinking, `Well, if you want an audience, David, you may want to consider putting some songs into your sets that they've actually heard.' Yes, I know, I went back on my word completely and absolutely."

He's now more comfortable riffling through his huge body of work. This week, the Museum of Television and Radio, in New York and Los Angeles, opened "Sound + Vision," a retrospective of Mr. Bowie on video that continues through Sept. 15. A restored version of "Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars," the D. A. Pennebaker documentary of the 1972 tour that defined glam-rock, will be released on July 10.

"Heathen" was produced by Tony Visconti, who last collaborated with Mr. Bowie on his 1980 album, "Scary Monsters." He worked on most of Mr. Bowie's 1970's albums, including the celebrated Berlin trilogy of "Low," " `

On "Heathen," Mr. Bowie knowingly hints at his past. He echoes the song " `Heroes' " in "Slow Burn," which wonders, "Who are we in times such as these?" He revives analog keyboard sounds like that of the Stylophone, a miniature electric organ played with a stylus that was heard on "Space Oddity" in 1969 and reappears in the new "Slip Away." When Mr. Bowie starts his tour with a show for fan-club members at Roseland on Tuesday, he plans to play all 12 songs on "Heathen," followed by all of "Low." Hearing the music 25 years later "makes the hairs on my arm stand up," he said.

To make "Low," Mr. Bowie recalled: "I had brought the idea of having fundamentally an R & B rhythm section working against this new zeitgeist of electronic ambience that was happening in Germany. It was terribly exciting to know that one had stumbled across something which was truly innovative.

"At that time, I was vacillating badly between euphoria and incredible depression. Berlin was at that time not the most beautiful city of the world, and my mental condition certainly matched it. I was abusing myself so badly. My subtext to the whole thing is that I'm so desperately unhappy, but I've got to pull through because I can't keep living like this. There's actually a real optimism about the music. In its poignancy there is, shining through under there somewhere, the feeling that it will be all right."

Drug problems are long behind him, Mr. Bowie said. He now hesitates to take even an Advil because. "I have such an addictive personality," he said.

Making "Heathen," he and Mr. Visconti were leery of nostalgia. "One thing we haven't tried to be is cutting edge," Mr. Bowie said. "The other thing we've tried not to do is to delve too far into the past and rely on our known strengths, our known previous work. We do know, between us, how to landscape a song and give it a real place, an identity and a character. I guess that's the vestiges of the more theatrical things."

The album starts with "Sunday" and ends with its title song, both hushed and haunted by mortality. In "Heathen," Mr. Bowie sings, "Still on the skyline, sky made of glass/ Made for a real world, all things must pass." The album was written before Sept. 11, however, and the songs join a long line of Mr. Bowie's apocalyptic scenarios.

"I hope that a writer does have these antennae that pick up on low-level anxiety and all those Don DeLillo resonances within our culture," he said. "But I don't want to say that it was in any way trying to suggest that it was going to happen. It's not like it's something new to me. These are all personal crises, I'm sure, that I manifest in a song format and project into physical situations. You make little stories up about how you feel. It's as simple as that."

Between his own ruminations, he borrows "Gemini Spacecraft," the Pixies' "Cactus" and Neil Young's "I've Been Waiting for You"; in songs like "Afraid" and "I Would Be Your Slave," he sings about love, insecurity and transience.

"I tried to make a checklist of what exactly the album is about and abandonment was in there, isolation," he said. "And I thought, well, nothing's changed much. At 55, I don't really think it's going to change very much. As you get older, the questions come down to about two or three. How long? And what do I do with the time I've got left?

"When it's taken that nakedly, these are my subjects. And it's like, well, how many times can you do this? And I tell myself, actually, over and over again. The problem would be if I was too self-confident and actually came up with resolutions for these questions. But I think they're such huge unanswerable questions that it's just me posing them, again and again."

Fp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668545)

Suck it down bitches!

Bowie (3, Insightful)

crumbz (41803) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668547)

Was ahead of his time by packaging and selling the rights to his current/future music back in the early 90s. If I remeber correctly, he picked up along the line of US$ 53 million from his stock sale. He has little to fear from copyright violations from a personal standpoint.

Bowie - Hits and Misses (3, Interesting)

great throwdini (118430) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668672)

Was ahead of his time by packaging and selling the rights to his current/future music back in the early 90s.

Unfortunately, BowieBanc [dailyrevolution.org] didn't fare as well [bankrate.com] ("Bowie bank leaves the stage") -

Bank officials didn't return our calls, but BowieBanc has, reportedly, been folded into USABancShares, which is being investigated by the FDIC for alleged violations of banking regulations.

On the other hand, it seems the Thin White Duke had a way with words back almost two years, with respect to digital piracy -

"Where are the major artists on the Web?", he asks. "Most MP3s are from unknown artists and most of the songs are crap!"

Visionary, or just outspoken?

Re:Bowie - Hits and Misses (1)

great throwdini (118430) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668688)

"Where are the major artists on the Web?", he asks. "Most MP3s are from unknown artists and most of the songs are crap!"

Damn. I knew I overlooked something obvious when I posted the above. Here's a reference - Bowie's words really do read like a /. troll, don't they? - Queen Bitch [tobyslater.com] .

Re:Bowie - Hits and Misses (5, Informative)

kootch (81702) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668754)

Wow. I didn't think anyone actually remembered that. I was one of 5 people in the internet division of USABancShares (formerly vBank, USABanc.com, People's Trust, and Norristown Savings i believe).

If you're curious, this was the deal with BowieBanc:

Ken Tepper, CEO of USABancShares.com, would go to some large organizations that were not connected to financial institutions. He would then pitch the idea of a "private label" bank where all of the money would actually be handled by vBank, the parent of USABancShares.com, but that the private label bank could issue credit cards, bank cards, checks, etc. with the name of the private label bank and all of the decorations. Other possible private label banks were YankeeBanc (new york yankees) and TrumpBanc (donald).

With BowieNet and the corporation Bowie owns, BowieBanc seemed like a good fit. His ISP clients, who were all huge fans, could easily open an online bank account, get a david bowie credit card (some of the designs were amazing), and a bunch of other perks.

The whole idea crashed down when USABancShares.com took on a host of bad loans (as banks often will do) and I believe they're still trying to track down the culprit. But the loans degraded their credit rating which is imperative for a bank to maintain.

It's a shame tho. We built the second online back with 5 ppl working 8 days straight (we slept in the bank). And the flash bank is still pretty neat all these years later.

Re:Bowie (2)

kubrick (27291) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668772)

He has little to fear from copyright violations from a personal standpoint.

... except being sued by the people who own the stock for talking down its prospects. (I'm not going to get into the question of whether they'd be justified or not -- whenever people get angry, they tend to reach for their lawyers.)

He sold shares in his prospective royalties, IIRC, not specifically shares in the music (e.g. IP) itself.

fp for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668548)

fp

Woww (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668552)

First post...

:-)

Q & A (0, Offtopic)

56ker (566853) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668557)

Do you think the Bowie machine has the power to make the music industry see the light?

No. End of discussion. Next!

Re:Q & A (-1)

k0osh.CEOofCLIT (582286) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668661)

I Pity The Fool

Well, I pity the fool I said I pity the fool
You know I pity the fool I said I pity the fool
She'll break your heart one day Then she'll laugh if she walks away
Yeah, I pity the fool

Well, look at the people Guess you wonder what to do
They're just standing there Watching you making a fool out of me

Ah, look at the people Bet you wonder what to do
Well, they're just standing there Watching you making a fool out of me

Yeah, I pity the fool I said I pity the fool
Ooh, I pity the fool Well, I said I pity the fool
She'll break your heart one day Then she'll laugh as you walk away
Well, I pity the fool

Well, look at the people Guess you wonder what to do
They're just standing there Watching you making a fool out of me

Yeah, look at the people Bet you wonder what to do
They're just standing there Watching you making a fool out of me

I pity the fool I pity the fool that falls in love with you
Oh, I pity the fool I pity the fool

I Pity The Fool (alternate vocal)

Well, I pity the fool I said I pity the fool
You know I pity the fool I said I pity the fool
That falls in love with you And expects you to be true
I pity the fool

Well, look at the people I bet you wonder what to do
Yeah, they're just standing there Watching you making a fool out of me

Yeah, look at the people I guess you wonder what to do
Yeah, they're just standing there Watching you making a fool out of me

I pity the fool I said I pity the fool
Ooh, I pity the fool Let me tell you that I pity the fool
'Cos she'll break your heart one day And she'll laugh if she walks away
Well, I pity the fool

Yeah, look at the people Bet you wonder what to do
Well, they're just standing there Watching you making a fool out of me

Yeah, look at the people Bet you wonder what to do
Well, they're just standing there Watching you making a fool out of me

I pity the fool I pity the fool that falls in love with you
Hey, hey, yeah
I pity the fool I pity the fool that falls in love with you

the music industry knows this too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668560)

the music industry also knows this, they just don't want to accept it.
can't blame 'em though, would you die without a fight[question mark]

[stupid hp notebook has a broken shift key, i should fix it....]

Snowball (0, Offtopic)

dorward (129628) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668561)

Do you think the Bowie machine has the power to make the music industry see the light?

Do you think the Bowie machine has the power to keep a snowball frozen in Hell?

Re:Snowball (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668732)

Offtopic? Someone has a sense of humour failure.

For those without NYTimes accounts... (4, Informative)

Froobly (206960) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668573)

Here's the text

David Bowie, 21st-Century Entrepreneur
By JON PARELES

IN a Manhattan rehearsal studio, Gerry Leonard seemed to be noodling on his guitar as the rest of David Bowie's band waited. He played some sustained notes and a bit of minor-key arpeggio; he worked his effects pedals, adding echoes. A digital stutter entered the pattern, and suddenly the music gelled into "Sunday," the song that opens Mr. Bowie's new album, "Heathen," which will be released on Tuesday.

Chords from a phantom chorus wafted from a keyboard, and Mr. Bowie intoned: "It's the beginning of an end, and nothing has changed. Everything has changed."

Mr. Bowie sang somberly about searching for signs of life, about fear and hope. At the end of the song, he shivered like someone coming out of a trance. "Ahhh," he said and grinned. "Good morning!" It was just after 11 a.m. and Mr. Bowie, 55, had already worked out at the gym and given an extended interview before starting the day's rehearsal for his summer tour.

Lean and affable, he was wearing a skintight gray T-shirt and stylishly understated gray pants. His gaze, with different-colored eyes because of a childhood accident that paralyzed his left pupil, has grown less disconcerting; he laughs easily. When asked what he considered the central point of his work, he said, "I write about misery" and chuckled.

Visions of cataclysm and professional aplomb: that's Mr. Bowie's life in his fourth decade as a rock star. One of rock's most astute conceptualists since the 1960's, he has toyed with the possibilities of his star persona, turned concerts into theater and fashion spectacles, and periodically recharged his songs with punk, electronics and dance rhythms. Now he has emerged as one of rock's smartest entrepreneurs.

"Heathen" is the first album from Mr. Bowie's own recording company, Iso, which has major-label distribution through Sony. In 1997, he sold $55 million of Bowie Bonds backed by his song royalties; the next year, he founded the technology company Ultrastar and his own Internet service provider-cum-fan club, Bowienet (davidbowie.com). In a nod to his art-school background, his bowieart.com sells promising students' work without the high commissions of terrestrial galleries.

His deal with Sony is a short-term one while he gets his label started and watches the Internet's effect on careers. "I don't even know why I would want to be on a label in a few years, because I don't think it's going to work by labels and by distribution systems in the same way," he said. "The absolute transformation of everything that we ever thought about music will take place within 10 years, and nothing is going to be able to stop it. I see absolutely no point in pretending that it's not going to happen. I'm fully confident that copyright, for instance, will no longer exist in 10 years, and authorship and intellectual property is in for such a bashing."

"Music itself is going to become like running water or electricity," he added. "So it's like, just take advantage of these last few years because none of this is ever going to happen again. You'd better be prepared for doing a lot of touring because that's really the only unique situation that's going to be left. It's terribly exciting. But on the other hand it doesn't matter if you think it's exciting or not; it's what's going to happen."

With his wife, Iman, he has a 22-month-old daughter, Alexandria, for whom he's keeping to a minimum his time away from home in Manhattan. When Mr. Bowie signed on as a headliner for Moby's Area:Two tour this summer, he made sure the schedule allowed him to return home between each of the six East Coast dates. He is also organizing, and performing at, Meltdown, a contemporary music, film and visual arts festival in London. (One songwriter he booked is Norman Carl Odam, known as the Legendary Stardust Cowboy, from whom he took Ziggy Stardust's last name in the 1970's; on "Heathen," he sings the Cowboy's "Gemini Spacecraft," about an astronaut obsessed with a girl he left behind.)

Mr. Bowie no longer expects to compete with performers in their 20's. "I'm well past the age where I'm acceptable," he said. "You get to a certain age and you are forbidden access. You're not going to get the kind of coverage that you would like in music magazines, you're not going to get played on radio and you're not going to get played on television. I have to survive on word of mouth."

HIS fans among musicians, including Moby and Nine Inch Nails, have toured with Mr. Bowie, introducing him to a younger generation.

Back in 1990, Mr. Bowie tried to jettison his past. He billed an arena tour as the last time he would play his old hits. "I really did think I meant that," he said. "I got quite a way into the 90's before I started thinking, `Well, if you want an audience, David, you may want to consider putting some songs into your sets that they've actually heard.' Yes, I know, I went back on my word completely and absolutely."

He's now more comfortable riffling through his huge body of work. This week, the Museum of Television and Radio, in New York and Los Angeles, opened "Sound + Vision," a retrospective of Mr. Bowie on video that continues through Sept. 15. A restored version of "Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars," the D. A. Pennebaker documentary of the 1972 tour that defined glam-rock, will be released on July 10.

"Heathen" was produced by Tony Visconti, who last collaborated with Mr. Bowie on his 1980 album, "Scary Monsters." He worked on most of Mr. Bowie's 1970's albums, including the celebrated Berlin trilogy of "Low," " `

On "Heathen," Mr. Bowie knowingly hints at his past. He echoes the song " `Heroes' " in "Slow Burn," which wonders, "Who are we in times such as these?" He revives analog keyboard sounds like that of the Stylophone, a miniature electric organ played with a stylus that was heard on "Space Oddity" in 1969 and reappears in the new "Slip Away." When Mr. Bowie starts his tour with a show for fan-club members at Roseland on Tuesday, he plans to play all 12 songs on "Heathen," followed by all of "Low." Hearing the music 25 years later "makes the hairs on my arm stand up," he said.

To make "Low," Mr. Bowie recalled: "I had brought the idea of having fundamentally an R & B rhythm section working against this new zeitgeist of electronic ambience that was happening in Germany. It was terribly exciting to know that one had stumbled across something which was truly innovative.

"At that time, I was vacillating badly between euphoria and incredible depression. Berlin was at that time not the most beautiful city of the world, and my mental condition certainly matched it. I was abusing myself so badly. My subtext to the whole thing is that I'm so desperately unhappy, but I've got to pull through because I can't keep living like this. There's actually a real optimism about the music. In its poignancy there is, shining through under there somewhere, the feeling that it will be all right."

Drug problems are long behind him, Mr. Bowie said. He now hesitates to take even an Advil because. "I have such an addictive personality," he said.

Making "Heathen," he and Mr. Visconti were leery of nostalgia. "One thing we haven't tried to be is cutting edge," Mr. Bowie said. "The other thing we've tried not to do is to delve too far into the past and rely on our known strengths, our known previous work. We do know, between us, how to landscape a song and give it a real place, an identity and a character. I guess that's the vestiges of the more theatrical things."

The album starts with "Sunday" and ends with its title song, both hushed and haunted by mortality. In "Heathen," Mr. Bowie sings, "Still on the skyline, sky made of glass/ Made for a real world, all things must pass." The album was written before Sept. 11, however, and the songs join a long line of Mr. Bowie's apocalyptic scenarios.

"I hope that a writer does have these antennae that pick up on low-level anxiety and all those Don DeLillo resonances within our culture," he said. "But I don't want to say that it was in any way trying to suggest that it was going to happen. It's not like it's something new to me. These are all personal crises, I'm sure, that I manifest in a song format and project into physical situations. You make little stories up about how you feel. It's as simple as that."

Between his own ruminations, he borrows "Gemini Spacecraft," the Pixies' "Cactus" and Neil Young's "I've Been Waiting for You"; in songs like "Afraid" and "I Would Be Your Slave," he sings about love, insecurity and transience.

"I tried to make a checklist of what exactly the album is about and abandonment was in there, isolation," he said. "And I thought, well, nothing's changed much. At 55, I don't really think it's going to change very much. As you get older, the questions come down to about two or three. How long? And what do I do with the time I've got left?

"When it's taken that nakedly, these are my subjects. And it's like, well, how many times can you do this? And I tell myself, actually, over and over again. The problem would be if I was too self-confident and actually came up with resolutions for these questions. But I think they're such huge unanswerable questions that it's just me posing them, again and again."

Re:For those without NYTimes accounts... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668654)

Karma whore!

Ironic (4, Insightful)

XorNand (517466) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668676)

It's kinda ironic that you violated the NY Time's copyright to cut and paste and article about copyright issues isn't it?

I don't like the required registration BS either, but you know what I do about it? I haven't registered and therefore don't read the Times (or their advertisers)... voting with my eyeballs.

I would be wise if people stop doing stupid stuff like this. I would be interesting (in a bad way) to have the Time's come after /. with the DCMA in it's fist.

Cookie (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668699)

Grab a cookie my friend.

Re:For those without NYTimes accounts... (1, Offtopic)

Clue4All (580842) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668685)

What's the problem with registering an account? They don't ask for any personal information that you need to enter truthfully, and there's no less than 5 posts in every NY Times story with slashdot/slashdot logins and the like. I really don't see the need for this.

why bother (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668753)

why register?

why should i bother, i just want to read the story, i dont want regulalry read the website, by the time i next want to read it i will probably have forgotten my passwords.

I am invariably going to lie on the registration form and i will totally ignore all their advertising, so i truth i am saving them bandwidth.

thank you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668764)

evidently, ":)" doesn't count as a comment.

anyway, thanks for posting the article, it saves me from remembering yet another pointless login.

Re:For those without NYTimes accounts... (1)

cei (107343) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668805)

I agree that reposting a copyrighted NY Times article is a fairly major violation, and certainly not worthy of a score of 5.

First, the poster does so without any editorial comment of his own, so why is he being rewarded, profiting of the words of another?

Second, in other slashdot cases where stories or content are mirrored, it is done to avoid the slashdot effect. I don't think the NY Times servers are going to have an issue with that.

Penis! (-1)

Serial Troller (556155) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668574)

Suck onto my thick, meaty 8===============D ...!

Re:Penis! <-- WRONG!!! Here's mine!! (-1)

Big_Ass_Spork (446856) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668702)

props to all trolls and crapflooders!
olli&#9608&#9608&#9608 c&#9608 a &#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 m&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 i&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 ght&#9608&#9608&#9608 y&#9608&#9608&#9608 -t&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 roll mmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmm&#9608 m&#9608&#9608 &#9608 m &#9608 &#9608 ne&#9608 &#9608 a&#9608&#9608 &#9608 l &#9608 n b&#9608 o&#9608 b&#9608&#9608 o&#9608 n b&#9608 y &#9608 pr0n king profane
mot&#9608 herf&#9608 uc&#9608 &#9608 ke&#9608 &#9608 r &#9608 &#9608 ra&#9608 lph&#9608 j&#9608 ewhat&#9608 er &#9608 na&#9608 der recipetroll re
tur&#9608&#9608&#9608 no&#9608 ft&#9608 &#9608 he&#9608 &#9608 sp&#9608 &#9608 or&#9608 k r&#9608 i&#9608&#9608&#9608 ngb&#9608 are&#9608 r &#9608 robotroll rock 'n'
tro&#9608&#9608&#9608 l&#9608 l &#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608 s&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 cri&#9608 pt&#9608&#9608&#9608 k &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608 id&#9608 die l33t serial tr
oller&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608 se&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608 xu&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 a&#9608&#9608&#9608 l ass&#9608 pus&#9608&#9608&#9608 s&#9608 y s&#9608 ub&#9608 ject line troll ta
sty&#9608&#9608 b&#9608 &#9608 ee&#9608 &#9608 &#9608&#9608 f&#9608 j er&#9608 &#9608&#9608 ky t&#9608 h&#9608&#9608 e&#9608 a&#9608 nim&#9608 e &#9608 troll the lyrics g
uy &#9608&#9608 t&#9608 &#9608 he&#9608 &#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608 mess&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608 eng&#9608 e&#9608&#9608 r&#9608 t&#9608 he &#9608 tu&#9608 rd report the wipo
tro&#9608&#9608&#9608 ll&#9608&#9608&#9608 t&#9608 h&#9608&#9608 &#9608 ings&#9608 t&#9608&#9608 o &#9608&#9608&#9608 d&#9608&#9608&#9608 o &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 &#9608&#9608 today trollaxor tro
llercoaster trolltime whistler's mother yourmissionfortoday yr0 and all the
AC's and people I forgot to include. and now a word from our sponser:It ha
s come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so ca
lled 'alternative sexuality,' which includes anything from hedonistic orgie
s to homosexuality to pedophilia.What better way of demonstrating this than
by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Li
nux's mos&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 t&#9608&#9608 o&#9608&#9608 utspok&#9608 &#9608 en&#9608&#9608&#9608 a &#9608&#9608&#9608 dv&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608 ocates: * Linus Torv
alds [mic&#9608 ro&#9608 s&#9608 &#9608&#9608 oft.co&#9608 m&#9608&#9608 &#9608 ] &#9608 &#9608 i&#9608&#9608 s&#9608 &#9608&#9608 an anagram of slit anus
or VD 'L,&#9608 ' &#9608 c&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 learly&#9608 r ef&#9608 er&#9608 &#9608 ring &#9608 &#9608&#9608 to himself by the first
initial. &#9608 &#9608 *&#9608&#9608&#9608 R ichar&#9608 d M.&#9608 S &#9608 &#9608 tallm&#9608 &#9608 an [geocities.com], spoke
spervert &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 for&#9608 t he Gay&#9608 sex'&#9608 s &#9608 &#9608 Not U&#9608&#9608&#9608 nusual 'movement' is an a
nagram of&#9608 m &#9608 an&#9608 s cram t&#9608 hril&#9608 l &#9608 &#9608 ad. &#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 * A lan Cox [microsoft.
com] is b&#9608 ar&#9608 el&#9608 y an ana&#9608 g&#9608&#9608 &#9608 ra&#9608 &#9608 m&#9608&#9608 o&#9608 &#9608&#9608 f anal cox which is just
so filth&#9608 y &#9608 an&#9608 d unchri&#9608 s&#9608&#9608 &#9608 ti&#9608 &#9608 a&#9608&#9608 n&#9608 &#9608&#9608&#9608 it unnerves me.I'm sure
that Eri&#9608&#9608&#9608&#9608 c S&#9608 . Raymond &#9608&#9608 , &#9608&#9608&#9608 co&#9608&#9608&#9608 mp&#9608 o&#9608&#9608 ser of the satanic homo
sexual [goatse.cx] propaganda diatribe The Cathedral and the Bizarre, is pr
obably an anagram of something queer, but we don't need to look that far as
we know he's always&#9617 s&#9617&#9617 hoving a gun up some poor little boy's rectum. Up
date: Eric S. Raymo&#9617 n&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 d is actually an anagram for se
condary rim and cord &#9617&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9618 &#9619&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9618&#9618 &#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617 in my arse. It just goes to sh
ow you that he is i&#9617 &#9618&#9619&#9619&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9618 &#9619&#9619&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618 &#9618&#9617 &#9617 ndeed queer.Update the Second: It
is also documented &#9617&#9619&#9619&#9618&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617 t hat Evil Sicko Gaymond is respo
nsible for a nauseat &#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618 &#9618&#9618 &#9617 ing piece of code called Fetchmai
l [microsoft.com], &#9617&#9619&#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9617 which is obviously sinister sodom
ite slang for 'Felc&#9617&#9619 &#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9617 h Male' -- a disgusting practise.
For those not i&#9617 &#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 n&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618 &#9618 &#9617 the know, 'felching' is the act
performed by two&#9617 &#9617&#9619&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9617 p&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9619 &#9617 &#9617 erverts wherein one sucks their
own post-coital e&#9617&#9619&#9618&#9618&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9617 j&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618 &#9618&#9618 &#9617 aculate out of the other's rect
um. In fact, it a&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618 &#9619&#9617&#9617 ppears that the dirty Linux fag
gots set out to u&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617 n&#9617&#9617&#9619&#9617&#9617 de&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618 &#9619&#9617 rmine the good Republican instit
ution of e-mail, &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617 t u&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9619&#9617&#9617 rni&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618 &#9618 ng it into 'e-male.'As far as Ri
chard 'Master'&#9617 &#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617 Stal&#9617&#9617 &#9619&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618 lman goes, that filthy fudge-pac
ker was actuall &#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617 y q&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9619&#9619 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618 &#9619&#9618 uoted [salon.com] on leftist com
mie propaganda &#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618 &#9618&#9618&#9619&#9618&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9619&#9617&#9617 site Salon.com as saying the fo
llowing: 'I've be&#9617&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9618 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619&#9618&#9617 &#9618&#9619&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9619&#9619 &#9619&#9618&#9617&#9617 en resistant to the pressure to
conform in any c&#9617&#9618&#9619&#9618&#9618 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618 &#9619&#9619&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617 ircumstance,' he says. 'It's ab
out being able t&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9619&#9618&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618 &#9618 o question conventional wisdom,' h
e asserts. 'I be&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 l&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617 ieve in love, but not monogamy,'
he says plainly.A &#9617&#9619&#9618&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9617&#9617 nd this isn't a made up troll b
ullshit either! &#9617 &#9617&#9619&#9618&#9617 &#9617 H&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618 &#9618 e actually stated this tripe, whic
h makes it obvio&#9617 &#9617&#9619&#9617&#9617 us &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618 that he is trying to politely say
that he's a flami&#9617 &#9618&#9617&#9617 ng &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618 homo [comp-u-geek.net] slut [rotte
n.com]!Speaking a&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 b&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 o&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9617 ut 'flaming,' who better to point
out as a filthy c&#9617&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618 &#9618&#9618&#9617 hutney ferret than Slashdot's ver
y own self-confe&#9617 &#9617&#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617 ssed pederast Jon Katz. Although
an obvious deviant &#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9617 a nagram cannot be found from his
name, he has al&#9617 &#9617&#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617 ready confessed, nay boasted of t
he homosexual [g&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618 oatse.cx] perversion of corrupting
the innocence o&#9617 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 f&#9617&#9617&#9617 y &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618 oung children [slashdot.org]. To q
uote from the ar&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618 &#9617&#9617&#9617 tic&#9617&#9617&#9617 le&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618 &#9618 l inked:'I've got a rare kidney di
sease,' I told h&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617 &#9617 e&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617 r.&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618 &#9617 ' I have to go to the bathroom a
lot. You can come&#9617&#9619 &#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 w&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618 &#9617 ith me if you want, but it takes
a while. Is that&#9617&#9617&#9619 &#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9617 &#9617 okay with you? Do you want a no
te from my docto&#9617 &#9619&#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9618&#9618 &#9617 r?'Is this why you were touchin
g your penis [ro&#9617&#9617&#9619&#9618 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 t&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9618&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618 ten.com] in the cinema, Jon? And
letting the othe&#9617&#9617 &#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9618&#9618 r boys touch it too?We should als
o point out that&#9617&#9617&#9619 &#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618 &#9618 Jon Katz refers to himself as 'Sl
ashdot's resident &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9617 Gasbag.' Is there any more doub
t? For those fort&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9617 unate few who aren't aware of t
he list of homos&#9617 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 e&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618 &#9618 &#9617 xual [goatse.cx] terminology fo
und inside the L&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618 &#9617 inux 'Sauce Code,' a 'Gasbag' is
a pervert who g&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617 ains sexual gratification from h
aving a thin stra&#9617&#9618&#9618 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617 w inserted into his urethra (or
to use the comm&#9617&#9617 &#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618 &#9618&#9617 on parlance, 'piss-pipe'), then
his homosexual [&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9618&#9618&#9617 goatse.cx]lover blows firmly dow
n the straw to in&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618 &#9617 flate his scrotum. This is, of
course, when he's&#9617&#9618&#9618 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618 n ot busy violating the dignity a
nd copyright of &#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618 posters to Slashdot by gathering
together their po&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618 stings and publishing them en mas
se to further hi&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618 s twisted and manipulative journa
listic agenda.Si&#9617 &#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617 ck, disgusting antichristian pe
rverts, the lot o&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9617 f them.In addition, many of the
Linux distributi&#9617 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9617 &#9617 ons (a 'distribution' is the mo
st common way to&#9617 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618 &#9618&#9617&#9617 spread the faggots' wares) are r
un by faggot gro&#9617 &#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617 &#9617 ups. The Slackware [redhat.com]
distro is named &#9617&#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9618 &#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617 after the 'Slack-wear' fags wea
r to allow easy a&#9617&#9618&#9618&#9618&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618&#9617&#9618 &#9617&#9617&#9617 ccess to the anus for sexual pu
rposes&#9617 &#9617 . &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9617&#9618 &#9618&#9617&#9617&#9617 &#9617&#9617 &#9617 Furthermore, Slackware is


Created with UAG v0.92 (c)on by 2002

See the light, sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668576)

Nice comment "see the light". So you envision the enlightened world were intellectual property rights do not exist. I'm sure you assume that that world's members do not intend to screw up each other, eh? or everything is milk and honey?

Maybe Mr Bowie should produce everything himself, but for some reason he sticks to Sony. Oh, everything is in theory (like communism) ah?

Re:See the light, sure (2, Interesting)

Sunnan (466558) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668606)

That's funny.
If I believed that everything was milk and honey, and that people would be kind to each other, I wouldn't be opposed to the copyright system because I would think that people wouldn't abuse it as they do now.

These days, people (like the record industry and the software publishing industry) exploit the public by abusing copyright.

These people put their long tentacles of control on everything they publish. You buy that record? Well, sonny, you better not copy it or you're gonna pay!

Your sweetheart asks for a copy? Are you going to be loyal to her/him or to the copyright owner?

Sharing copies with other people shouldn't be a crime, it's a nice thing to do.

These days, everythings not "milk and honey", because the laws are set up to reward miserliness and punish friendliness.

Re:See the light, sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668659)

Sharing copies surely its a nice thing to do. I would also mention sharing girlfriends as well ;)

But aside to that, the problem arises once the copyright holder realises that somebody earns in parallel to it, without being specifically granted so. I.e. I could sell a CD full of mp3s for less than a 20 Malboro Lights or I could even spare you a copy.

Then why should the copyright holder even be arsed to sell the original CDs? That's why I believe that Mr Bowie should publish all his work on the net and avoid messing up with Sony. But the guy is bullshiting...

Re:See the light, sure (1)

Sunnan (466558) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668766)

Yeah, I agree, as long as it's not in an extremely lossy format or one that has disgusting Duplication Restriction Mechanics.

Random NYTimes registration generator (4, Informative)

BurpingWeezer (199436) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668587)

http://www.majcher.com/nytview.html might come in handy for some

Right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668592)

  • Do you think the Bowie machine has the power to make the music industry see the light?
Yeah, the executives will see the error of their ways and stop accepting the bags marked with $ signs that keep pouring into their offices. Davie Bowie's opinion means more to them than profit and shareholders ever could. </sarcasm>

Re:Right. (1)

Sunnan (466558) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668693)

If this "Bowie"-character has a lot of fans, he's opinion may well influence them. If a lot of people stops giving a fuck about what the RIAA thinks, things may change.

Bowie always had vision. (5, Interesting)

Groucho (1038) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668595)

I'd love to hear more of what he has to say about media decentralization and the gargantuan shift from megastars to niche artists. Can we try and do one of those "ask Bowie 20 questions" thingies?

I still think there's room for artists to sell music in a physical medium, with disks, nice cover art, books, perhaps a box set. I've downloaded just about everything by Tommy Guerrero but I'm collecting the CDs anyways... better sound quality, more permanent, nice cover art, and the pleasure of owning them and knowing I've contributed something to the artist. (TG does amazing grooving downtempo Cali-Latin style funky jazzy ambient blues, kinda like Booker T meets Tortoise with a bottle of wine on Carlos Santana's back porch.).

G

Oh, well, I can understand considering their sizes (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668600)

Geeez! The little, almost insignificant media company, The New York Times, is slashdotted. I sure glad that huge company Slashdot can handle peak loads well. One day even the NYT will be able to afford a server like Slashdot's.

Argh, Sony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668601)

So for all of the belief that Bowie has a clue intellectual-property-wise, what are the chances that his CD is one of the broken "copy protected" ones produced by Sony these days?

Bowie and Don DeLillo (3, Interesting)

mensan98th (177463) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668604)

I recommend DeLillo's book "White Noise" for insights into Bowie's mindset. It's very much in keeping with the comments in the NYT piece about Bowie's emotional space. And an easy read for a postmodern novel.

Bowie Bonds (5, Informative)

bckspc (172870) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668605)

In 1997, David Bowie issued bonds to pay interest from his old song royalties. Prudential Insurance Co. of America bought them all. Read [canoe.ca] about [assetpub.com] it, and David Pullman [upenn.edu] , the guy who helped him do it. The offering "allowed Bowie to collect $55 million up front, using some of the money to buy out a former manager and keep control of his music."

Just a regular album preview (1)

endquotedotcom (557632) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668608)

If you're looking for Bowie's musings on copyright and intellectual property, this isn't the article you want, as the quote in the post is pretty much all he says on that topic.

CopyRight (4, Interesting)

cameronk (187272) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668617)

In the great debate over fair use versus profits we seem to continuously forget the purpose of such laws. With out some way to compensate folks who create intellectual property-be they recording artists, writers, professors or management consultants-the incentives to produce quality content disappears. When Bowie says, "I'm fully confident that copyright, for instance, will no longer exist in 10 years, and authorship and intellectual property is in for such a bashing." I believe that he means that our current form of copyright, something that for all purposes is woefully dated.

The problem is that our current distribution model for intellectual property, especially music, does not work given the nominal distribution costs of internet-based music distribution. No digital form of distribution provides an equivalent level of moderation provided by the music industry, it is almost impossible to find the best quality content out of the giant databases like IUMA [iuma.com] or MP3.com [mp3.com] . We still need some way to sort the good stuff from the banal. It probably makes sense to use Gnutella to download pop music today, but from a long term perspective, we need to create an entirely new paradigm for music proliferation.

Re:CopyRight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668687)


It probably makes sense to use Gnutella to download pop music today, but from a long term perspective, we need to create an entirely new paradigm for music proliferation.

We've been working on something over at theantidote.net [theantidote.net] where bands can sell individual songs directly (see the "Music Distribution" link). Don't know how it will fare yet (it's only been up a few days), but it seems to be a step in the right direction. We've got a few other bands that will be joining us in the next couple days, and then we'll start mentioning it to fans and see if they bite.

One long-term goal of this project is to inspire the creation of easy-to-set-up distribution centers. Buying a single song from a single artist doesn't work too well because of the transaction overhead (you might pay more to the CC company than a single song costs), but if all artists were to do something like this, imagine how easy it would be for a music junkie to build a collection and then turn around and be a reseller. Instead of a few major labels deciding what's hip and what's not, you'd instead have thousands of individuals building personal collections (similar to mp3.com "stations"), and then it would be *those* collections that would be sold.

How does this benefit the artists? Well, if music is licenced under (e.g.) the EFF Open Audio Licence, it cannot be resold without permission of the artist. That being the case, the artist can choose who gets to resell their music, and the free market can decide what percentage the artists get.

At least that's the theory ;-) We'll see how it pans out over the next year or two.

m.

Re:CopyRight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668735)

How does this benefit the artists? Well, if music is licenced under (e.g.) the EFF Open Audio Licence, it cannot be resold without permission of the artist. That being the case, the artist can choose who gets to resell their music

Er, for the record, I just checked and the EFF license doesn't state this at all. I'm not sure what license (if any) I was thinking of.

Re:CopyRight (2)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668724)

But that's not the whole story. Let me ask you, why do we want to provide an incentive to create works? What benefit do ordinary people see?

Bowies credibility (1)

FullClip (139644) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668618)

Though he's a great musician,
this is also the man who made his
own bank and electronic currency.

Did it work ?
Or maybe you didn't know he tried this stuff ?

Exactly my point :)

Re:Bowies credibility (1)

EddydaSquige (552178) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668670)

I didn't know about the currency, but the bank (bowiebank) was not really any thing more than a licencing deal with USABankshares (an internet based bank, ie no real world branches). Not much more than their normal account with Bowie picture on the ATM card.

Why NYTimes requires registration [OT] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668619)

I have the same attitude most other /.ers have towards NYTimes's registration process, i.e. a 'no thanks' sort of attitude. I wrote to their privacy department a while back asking why they require registration, and here is the response I got:

Thanks for your letter inquiring about our registration policy.

Different news organizations on the Web do different things in order to earn enough revenue to provide their services. The Wall Street Journal, for example, charges $59 a year for access to its site. Several others request a zip code or a birth date in order to use a particular service, or gather information about readers and their viewing habits gradually through "cookies" as they travel a site. Some sites do nothing at all; many of those sites are losing not insignificant amounts of money.

In our case, asking a few questions of our readers is the "price" we charge for access. As stated in our Privacy Policy, linked from the bottom of our home page http://www.nytimes.com, the information we gather from our individual readers is kept strictly confidential. The major use of this information is to allow advertising banners on our pages to be shown to the readers for whom they are most pertinent. This means that readers see advertising that is most likely to interest them, and advertisers send their messages to people who are most likely to be receptive, improving both the viewer's experience and the effectiveness of the ads.

The information we gather also allows us to learn how various types of users respond to the features we provide, helping us to improve our services.

We understand that some people find our registration questions too intrusive to answer. For those people, access to The New York Times is available by purchasing the newspaper, which can be obtained on many newsstands or delivered by visiting our home delivery web site at http://1-800.nytimes.com.

Thanks for your interest.

Re:Why NYTimes requires registration [OT] (1)

MImeKillEr (445828) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668794)

Why doesn't someone just register in the name of /., and we all use this to read the stories? Can we not link directly to the story, post-login? Just use http://www.makeashorterlink.com to decrease the link length, and none of us have to sign up for a NYTimes account...

Get over yourself already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668625)

Do you think the Bowie machine has the power to make the music industry see the light?"

Get over yourself /. An aging artist, writing in the NYT will convince an industry to turn its back on monopolistic profits? Was this an honest question? /. needs to cut this crap out of the stories. It adds nothing to the story.

Copyright (1, Funny)

Espectr0 (577637) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668634)

No copyright for you! Come back! 10 years!

Re:Copyright (-1)

Big_Ass_Spork (446856) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668740)

If only I wasn't $rtbl'd and had some mod points, I'd give you a +1 (funny), yes, I would do this for you.

--
BAS

It's all about the branding. Bowie gets it. (5, Insightful)

Hawthorne01 (575586) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668635)

Does anyone out there buy a record because it's on Island vs. Maverick vs. Sony? (Okay, Maverick is owned by Madonna, which may make me think twice...). Through the selling of bonds, his ISP, and now these comments, it's obvious he's making himself a brand that people know and trust, and therefore are willing to pay for. When music is a commodity in the post-copyright world (which is coming, whether the RIAA likes it on not), the people who have a distinctive style that engenders brand loyalty will have the following willing to pay for music instead of getting it for free. An example of this from the last two decades was The Grateful Dead.

I seriously doubt copyright will die (4, Interesting)

squarooticus (5092) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668638)

Copyright is necessary as incentive for the creation of new works. I and others are happy creating GPL'ed software, but we are a very small minority of people producing creative works. So, I don't see copyright going away anytime soon.

What will have to change, however, is our perception of copyright. At this point, copyright is considered (however incorrectly) an inalienable right that often trumps even the first amendment. This situation is untenable. What I already see happening is the start of a movement to put the teeth back in the public side of the copyright bargain.

In the best case, I see copyright terms decreasing significantly and fair use rights being enforced by law. The first increases the incentive to produce by shortening the term of the artificial monopoly we the People grant to authors and artists.

The second means that the People's right to use works protected under copyright in any reasonable way they choose will be formally encoded, perhaps even to the point of outlawing fair use prevention technologies (what is usually called "copy protection") on works protected by copyright: this would restore the same balance that used to exist for patents before the DMCA.

I'll leave the worst case to others. =)

Re:I seriously doubt copyright will die (2, Insightful)

boy case (197665) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668674)

I and others are happy creating GPL'ed software, but we are a very small minority of people producing creative works.

Interestingly, the GPL only works because of copyright. It's the protection that copyright affords the author of the code that gives him/her the right to attach the GPL and insist on the usage that code is put to.

If copyright didn't exist, there'd be nothing to stop people taking open sources and building their own binaries and selling them binary-only unimpeded. GPL would basically equal public domain; this is not the free software movement's aim at all.

Re:I seriously doubt copyright will die (1)

squarooticus (5092) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668681)

Agreed. I don't want a world without copyright; I just want a world with much weaker copyright.

This is a myth... (4, Insightful)

Sunnan (466558) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668723)

If copyright did not exist:
  1. Everyone could distribute copies of software and run all software for all purposes (freedoms zero and two of FSF fame) and
  2. there would be no economic incentive for not distributing source with your binary - since your binaries can be copied anyway, why lose the advantages that distributing source will give you? (Cross-platform compability, people looking for bugs, a more trustworthy image, happier customers)
  3. and disassemblers would not be illegal.


In a world without copyright, I still think that RMS and FSF would be happy.

Still, totally abolishing copyright is not a stated goal of the FSF. They just want more rights for the users of published software.

No (4, Insightful)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668695)

Copyright is necessary as incentive for the creation of new works

Tell that to Bach, Shakespeare or any one else before probably 1900.

It may in a few instances encourage people to produce new works, but I bet in more cases it discourages people from using established works as the basis for new works. I bet it's a wash whether copyright helps or hinders in the grand picture.

All it really does is enable a few to get filthy rich while not helping the other 99.99% at all. Especially considering the few plagiarism cases that come to trial, where some rich artist (or corporation) is sued by some nobody for stealing his idea. The big guys can afford to steal and violate copyright because they have the lawyers to beat down the poor guys.

Re:I seriously doubt copyright will die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668709)

The best scenario is that copyright once again becomes applied as was intended, to protect producers from other producers, not from consumers. Pirates will be people who copy for resale, not for use in the car.

Re:I seriously doubt copyright will die (2)

liquidsin (398151) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668758)

There's a fundamental difference between software and music. Even without copyright, musicians make money by touring. From what I've heard (I'm no expert) that's the main source of revenue anyways. I don't think there are many gpl software developers raking in cash on public appearances, unless they're giving seminars or teaching, which would make sense...

Re:I seriously doubt copyright will die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668815)

Urrgh...just imagine a touring concert of free software gurus? RMS on lead vocals... Linus on guitar...? Playing the Free Software Song [gnu.org] I suppose?...

Re:I seriously doubt copyright will die (1)

awol (98751) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668759)

Copyright is necessary as incentive for the creation of new works

No, No, No, No, No. Copyright is not necessary as an incentive. An incentive is necessary as an incentive (obviously). There are so many ways of creating incentive, that do not involve the broken restrictions of copyright. Further, I contend that it is the entire spectrum of IP that is broken and we need none of it to to provide the incentive to produce creative works. (I choose not to criticise your distinction between those creating software and those creating other kinds of creative works).

1. There is a whole class of cretaive work that is by definition immune from this issue and that is the work as instance, for example a specific painting, or sculpture, an installation, even a print (in the lithographic sense) is probably immune. They have no need for copyright since they cannot be copied without telling a lie (ie fraud, a sufficiently serious offence to abrogate the need for property rights to get involved). That is, one cannot make a legitimate and faultless (or indetectibly faultless :-) copy of the original and pass it off as the original Note the phrase "pass off" we will return to that later.

2. An artiste will gain repute throught the excellence of their work and the demand for their future work will grow with this repute. In the case of performers, they can gain wealth by performing and can gain repute by the wide distribution of their recorded works that in turn increases demand for their limited performances.

3. Patronage, as the role of independently wealthy patrons, state funded organisations (or endowments), or even some form of ad hoc or organised collection of individuals.

4. Catharsis. Ask any artist worth their salt how much the revenue they will get modifies the output of their artistic "urges". Given food and shelter most will still produce and that will bring us back into the cycle of (2).

These are some simple examples, none of which require copyright (or IP) as an incentive to produce creative work. The complete fallacy of the argument that IP is _required_ as an incentive is proven by the plethora of creative work that existed before IP existed and the existence of ancient wrongs (such as fraud or passing off) to protect the integrity of a producer of creative works' reputation. Further, your couching of the issue in terms of American constitutional doctrine ought to prompt the question of why doctrine is required here at all, these things are far more "natural" than any such doctrine requires.

Re:I seriously doubt copyright will die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668777)

You are going to be left behind...

The same rules apply to the music industry as apply to the software industry, it's just that the music industry happens to employ significantly less people.

It is *impossible* to stop people from recording and copying music with modern technology. Thanks to the wonders of free market capitalism, companies will always exist which cater for consumers who wish to free information (i.e. evade copyright). The same rules apply to software.

The whole system will work exactly like the programming will eventually work - artists/programmers will be paid by the record company/software company to create the music. Then money will be made through merchandising orconcerts/tech support by the company. Simple and perfectly economically rational. Welcome to the future.

Not 10 years (3, Interesting)

namespan (225296) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668656)

Not in 10 years. This is going to take a legislative policy change... there could be some changes in the courts, but as we all know, court decisions will probably come down on the side of those with the most money (large corps/very rich individuals with a lot of IP to lose). Most of the public is simply not aware enough of IP issues, and most legislators probably beleive in a conservative view of IP.

I think it'll have to get worse before it gets better in order for the public to start examining it. But I also think in about 20 years, we'll start to get a crop of legislators that are not quite so corporate. I think it's partly a demographic thing.

Of course, it will help if the average slashdot guy becomes a little more activist. Should you run for congress?

New York Times article (1, Offtopic)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668660)

I was surfing nytimes.com right before I clicked onto slashdot. I noticed this article [nytimes.com] about David Boies on the front page.

David Boies, you know, the famous lawyer who represented the government against Microsoft, and Al Gore versus Florida.

So when I read the blurb on slashdot, I figured that someone important had something logical.

My mistake.

End of intellectual property, as sad day indeed. (0)

gilgsn (239700) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668662)

I have read many posts about the "evil" corporations and uselessness of copyrights, but never figured out how this could be a good thing. If I produce software, music, or writings, these are the results of my work and efforts, and nobody is entitled to steal them! Intellectual property is no less than private property. How would you feel if someone stole your computer because presumably they have a better use for it? Sure, it would be nice if artists could bypass some middlemen and we could buy a CD for a couple dollars, it doesn't mean we should steal music because CDs are too expensive. If no-one would buy them over $10, the producers would have to lower their prices, simple law of supply and demand. About corporations, don't forget that they are not faceless entities. Many corporations are the result of someone risking the little money they had in starting a business and working their ass off for many years before succeeding. Corporations pay your salary, they turn theories into reality. Do you think you could get antibiotics to save your life if medicines were free? Not a chance, nobody would produce them. Same goes for anything else. Intellectual property should be affordable, but not free. What about open source software you'll ask? Open source software is great, but don't forget that it is produced by people who have another occupation to pay the bills; I don't mean your cable TV bill here, I also mean buying food to eat. Artists won't produce music if they can't eat. Sure you'll be able to download free music from the net, maybe enough songs to fill a whole cdrom... The day intellectual property is abolished will be a really sad day indeed, not that I'll care, the next morning I would be sailing off!

Re:End of intellectual property, as sad day indeed (2, Insightful)

Ranger Rick (197) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668733)

If I produce software, music, or writings, these are the results of my work and efforts, and nobody is entitled to steal them!

But CDs aren't the results of your work. The music, or words, are. If I, as an artist, burn a CD of my music, and give it to someone, I have lost nothing other than the 50 cents for the media. The music in my head has not gone away.

Intellectual property is no less than private property.

Yes, intellectual property is arguably property, but the mistake is in treating it exactly like physical property.

The problem is not in the idea of "intellectual property" (referencing the originator of a work, acknowledging the creativity that went into it), but in the mistake of using the word property which has connotations that don't directly apply to the very different ideas of a physical thing (a piece of land, a car, a radio), and an idea.

How would you feel if someone stole your computer because presumably they have a better use for it?

If someone stole my computer, I would no longer have the use of my computer. But if I write a song and someone tapes me singing it, what have I lost?

I write music, and I make no money off of it, because I like the idea of people listening to my music. Artists will produce music [scenespot.org] even if they can't eat off money made from selling CDs. "Artists" who are paid to manufacture generic music for mass-sale will probably go away, but that won't stop real music from happening. It will just stop non-musicians who have a career in music.

Now it may be that in the future, society will agree as a whole that using someone else's intellectual property (singing someone else's song, manufacturing drugs using someone else's formula) will be considered a form of stealing, but it is a mistake to consider it the same form of stealing as taking another person's computer, or stealing their car. That is what exists now, it's too rooted in laws of physical appropriation for it to apply to reality, and that is where these arguments start. When people discuss "stealing" IP they're really talking about two different things.

Re:End of intellectual property, as sad day indeed (2)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668736)

Unfortunately, this is entirely wrong.


Particularly with regards to this: If I produce software, music, or writings, these are the results of my work and efforts, and nobody is entitled to steal them! Intellectual property is no less than private property.

That's not how it works. We have copyright laws in order to benefit the public. If this happens to satisfy artists, that's great, but not necessary. Benefits to artists are merely a 'carrot' used to extract useful works out of them. They didn't earn it merely by virtue of the act of creation. Were this so, the lack of copyright anywhere in the world prior to roughly 300 years ago would be entirely inexplicable.

The public benefit comes first and foremost. Anything else is merely happy chance.

You can't own words, daddy-o. (1)

Sunnan (466558) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668751)

  1. Nothing is produced in a void. Esp. software - in the free software world, there's a common codebase that can be used and reused. Long copyright terms on literature has severely harmed creativity. Same goes for music - hiphop music was a hell of a lot better when the musicians weren't afraid of getting sued for sampling too much.
  2. You won't write stuff without getting paid? Sure, that's fine by me. Who paid you to write that comment?
  3. I wouldn't mind if someone copied my computer - that way, we have one each. Copying computers is kind of hard, but I can let people use my computer via ssh and ftp, and that's been known to happen.

Adaptive (3, Insightful)

Malc (1751) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668667)

Although I don't like everything David Bowie has produced in his career, he has a lot to be impressed about. He seems to constantly re-invent himself and move in to new genres of music. If anybody is open to changes in copyright, this man surely is. He'll just adapt to it and try out something new like he has throughout the rest of his long career.

He should sell support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668669)

How many garage bands could use some Bowie consulting services?

special edition... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668696)

All off his new CD's will be autographed on the outer rim with a sharpie :)

Bling Blnig (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668704)

Jon [goatse.cx] Barrett [goatse.cx] Jon [goatse.cx] Barrett [goatse.cx] Jon [goatse.cx] Barrett [goatse.cx] Jon [goatse.cx] Barrett [goatse.cx] Jon [goatse.cx] Barrett [goatse.cx] Jon [goatse.cx] Barrett [goatse.cx] loves you.


bowie's pretty much always ahead of trends (5, Insightful)

discogravy (455376) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668720)

and he's very much a good businessman and artist. he was ahead of the herd with musical styles and fashions and he's very likely right on this one as well. of course, he's in a position to not care that much, since he's got control of his back catalogue, a huge fanbase, other businesses (bowienet, etc) and lots of unreleased stuff in the can just waiting for a boxset release.

Re:bowie's pretty much always ahead of trends (1)

Sunnan (466558) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668826)

Ahead of trends? He's still doing orgelkärring-covers.

You know something? (0, Insightful)

kmweber (196563) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668741)

Without the record companies, you wouldn't have ever heard of any of the artists you listen to today. The costs involved in producing and massively distributing an album are so high that no startup band could ever hope to afford them. Your local garage band may be able to produce a record or two in their garage, and then distribute it to a couple of local stores, but without the financial backing of a major record company, they have precisely a snowball's chance in Hell of distributing nationwide.

NYT Random Login Generator (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668747)

The NYT Random Login Generator [majcher.com] generates you an account and redirects you to the article you want to go to. Requires only a copy-n-paste action and a button press!

Posting anonymously to avoid childish karma-whore flames.

What's done-for is scheduled viewing/listening (3, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668755)

PVRs and computerized audio recording are going to eliminate any need for "Prime Time", or for any sort of scheduled broadcast entertainment.

Time shifting will give control of life-scheduling back to the public.

If the machines skip commercials, then broadcast entertainment may be doomed, unless something like the British television-licensing model comes into play. Cable rates would have to jump by a hundred dollars per month to keep the same revenues going into the system.

P2P won't make so great a dent as to obviate copyright. Mass-market bandwidth is too low, and it's too easy to recognize the traffic signature of illegal file traders. The Xerox machine didn't kill publishing, and Napster didn't kill the RIAA.

--Blair

David Bowie Is Cooler Than We Though! (4, Insightful)

Lethyos (408045) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668771)

An artist, a rather good one at that, has stepped forward and made a move for the greater good.

Now the question is, will the Slashdot community - a group always bitching about these issues - use its large, unified presence to mirror that good act? I was just discussing with my girlfriend that we ought to go out and purchase the CD as soon as it becomes available.

If there's a huge show of support for Bowie's move here, it will reflect that his ideals are good ones. Others will follow his lead (lots of other artists have - but after seeing his success). So go out and actually buy a disc with confidence that most of the money is going to the artist, instead of some rich old wind-bag's pocket.

Whoops... (1)

Lethyos (408045) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668817)

I meant "thought", not "though" :)

Bowie, Weezer, Wolco, etc. (2, Insightful)

joel8x (324102) | more than 12 years ago | (#3668783)

These artists are brave enough to prove the future of the music industry does not need to include the "industry". This has been a long time comming and I hope that the general population supports this mentality so that music can be appreciated based on its true value, which is not how much money the big labels can thow at the flavor of the week, but on pure talent.

Unfortunately the legality of the situation ... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3668820)

is irrelevant. I grant you that artist have rights to that which they worked and sweated over. No doubt. (no pun)

However, a more interesting question in my mind is how to regulate this. Quite frankly I don't think you can. I am fairly technically savvy, and I don't think that they will come up with a way to stop people from copying music, video, and writings.

Given that you can't regulate it, what does it matter if it's illegal?

I think that artists will just have to deal with the fact that they will be creating things which will not bring them income. Although all artists are not in this game for the income, it seems to me that all the one's that are complaining are the ones who only care about the cashola. Maybe a new breed of artists is how it will be in the future.

For the record, I pay for my DVD's (right now) and I pay for all of the CD's that I listen to. However, I have downloaded MP3's and I would honestly say that if the CD player in my car played MP3's, then I would be burning my own.

Regardless of the law, people are going to break it. Mostly when they really want the payoff, and there is little or no punishment. It's a gamble, just like speeding, but right now there are very few speed traps.

My 2 cents
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...