IED0DXM@OAC.UCLA.EDU (07/19/89)
To: Love-Hounds
From: IED (with Neil's help)
Subject: _Cathy_Demos_--the "official" view; and KT NEWS
Neil sent along the actual announcement printed in the latest
issue of _Homeground_, which pretty much acts as a Bush family mouth-
piece when called upon to do so.
HOMEGROUND feels that it should be said, in view of possible legal
actions pending, that these tapes are highly illegal, and that
copying and distribution, even amongst friends and not for gain is
still illegal. Kate herself is highly upset about these releases.
IED agrees with Neil that this notice is meant more to try to
discourage people from making the tapes, and not as a promise that
actual legal action will be taken. Such action would probably be
counter-productive from EMI's and Kate's point of view, though of
course one never knows for sure. However, IED is taking the notice
very seriously, and at this point he must say the tape deal looks
doubtful. Final decision still pending, but L-Hs will know ASAP.
KT NEWS:
In more _good_ KT news: A project which was originally announced
in the trade papers more than a year ago, and subsequently said to
have been scrapped, has now been re-activated (info again courtesy of
Neil). The project in question is a comilation album of songs written
by the songwriting team of Elton John and Bernie Taupin, as covered
in new recordings by a variety of artists. The occasion was originally
to have been the twentieth anniversary of the John-Taupin partnership,
though that now may be an obsolete excuse for the album.
In any event, when the project was first announced, Kate Bush
was slated to record a cover version of _Rocket_Man_ for the album,
and that now appears to be on again.
-- Andrew Marvickgross@FRITH.EGR.MSU.EDU (Steve Gross IEEE) (07/19/89)
IED has stated (I won't bother to formally refer to the article, as I am
sure that the words are floating before everyone's respective faces, in 6-foot
letters of fire) that he will accept all scorn and ridicule heaped upon him as a
result of the obsKuriTies_2 project. I won't go so far as to ridicule him, but I
have a question for him that I think is also of interest to the general
Love-Hounds public:
"If you cancel the tape project, what will become of _your_ copy of THE
TAPE?"
That is, if _all_ copying of any form of the _Cathy_Demos_ is verboten, will
IED destroy his and post the ashes to the net? Or will he continue his (not
quite) solitary enjoyment of said music? If he chooses the former, I will at
least applaud his self-consistency (at the same time I mourn the non-arrival of
my own copy of the tape). If the latter, I would expect the seven plagues to be
visited upon him in turn. Not that I wish him any ill will, but hypocrisy
irritates me.CCJS@cc.nu.oz (James Smith) (07/21/89)
Steve Gross writes: > "If you cancel the tape project, what will become of _your_ copy of THE > TAPE?" > That is, if _all_ copying of any form of the _Cathy_Demos_ is verboten, will > IED destroy his and post the ashes to the net? > Not that I wish him any ill will, but hypocrisy > irritates me. While it is illegal to copy a tape for someone else, I don't see that it is illegal to own one. If Andrew doesn't copy the tapes, it is because he cannot legally do so, not because he doesn't want to share the music with us. I thought Love-Hounds were above this. Myself, I've thought a great deal about this, and while I agree that it is illegal to copy the tapes, and that it is against Kate's wishes, I still can't see that it's wrong. For me I guess that the key question is: "Does an artist have the right to suppress their own work, or does it belong to the human race?" -- James Smith Computing Centre University of Newcastle ACSnet: ccjs@cc.nu.oz.au Phone: +61 49 685635 "It scares me silly but it gets me going, like a Romeo" -- Kate Bush
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (07/21/89)
Really-From: James Smith <munnari!cc.nu.oz.au!CCJS@uunet.UU.NET> Path: cc!ccjs From: CCJS@cc.nu.oz (James Smith) Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa Subject: Re: _Cathy_Demos_--the "official" view; and KT NEWS Message-ID: <8489@cc.nu.oz> Date: 20 Jul 89 13:49:50 EST References: <8907182240.AA27517@frith.egr.msu.edu> Organization: University of Newcastle Lines: 27 Steve Gross writes: > "If you cancel the tape project, what will become of _your_ copy of THE > TAPE?" > That is, if _all_ copying of any form of the _Cathy_Demos_ is verboten, will > IED destroy his and post the ashes to the net? > Not that I wish him any ill will, but hypocrisy > irritates me. While it is illegal to copy a tape for someone else, I don't see that it is illegal to own one. If Andrew doesn't copy the tapes, it is because he cannot legally do so, not because he doesn't want to share the music with us. I thought Love-Hounds were above this. Myself, I've thought a great deal about this, and while I agree that it is illegal to copy the tapes, and that it is against Kate's wishes, I still can't see that it's wrong. For me I guess that the key question is: "Does an artist have the right to suppress their own work, or does it belong to the human race?" -- James Smith Computing Centre University of Newcastle ACSnet: ccjs@cc.nu.oz.au Phone: +61 49 685635 "It scares me silly but it gets me going, like a Romeo" -- Kate Bush