(#2003-4633) - Topics this issue: 1) Digest-The Bee Gees sing again at last, 2) Robin On Radio 2 Today, 3) Digest-The Bee Gees sing again at last, 4) Digest-The Bee Gees sing again at last, 5) "The Bee Gees War", 6) Digest (10/04/2003 06:02) (#2003-4619), 7) Magnet Revisited - Second Single, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 14:04:28 EDT From: Laughinchild@aol.com Subject: Re: Digest-The Bee Gees sing again at last --part1_114.29bf8463.2cb45a2c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ListMember@brothersgibb.com writes: Robin is going to be going to the awards to pick it up, Barry won't be going--unless he's changed his mind in the last couple of days. Joan ************* Is this fact or an opinion? If it is fact, then it backs up my "opinion" that it may be quite a while before they work together again, as there are no business obligations which prevent Barry from going, just the usual reasons he has given for the last few years. Of course, it is his right not to work for as long as he wants, isn't it? Oh and before you dissect my meaning, I include public appearence as "work". Annie --part1_114.29bf8463.2cb45a2c_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 19:05:30 +0100 From: "Maggie Bleksley" Subject: Robin On Radio 2 Today Unfortunately, I missed Robin on the radio as I was at work and there doesn't seem to be a 'listen again' facility for that programme:o((( Anything interesting to report? Maggie > Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 14:26:19 +0100 > From: "bgs4ver" > Subject: Robin On Radio 2 Today > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C38CDE.F9BA4B70 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Hello all, Rob will be on Radio 2 today, in about 1 hr, on Steve Wrights = > Show > you can listen online at > http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio2.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 20:22:18 +0200 From: Ronnie Olsson Subject: Re: Digest-The Bee Gees sing again at last 2003-10-07 20.04, skrev Laughinchild@aol.com p=E5 Laughinchild@aol.com f=F6ljande: =20 > it backs up my "opinion" > that it may be quite a while before they work together again, as there ar= e no > business obligations which prevent Barry from going, just the usual reaso= ns he > has given for the last few years. Of course, it is his right not to work= for > as=20 > long as he wants, isn't it? Oh and before you dissect my meaning, I incl= ude > public appearence as "work". >=20 > Annie It's just an assumption but the reason for Barry not coming to Europe could be the climate, it's not particularly warm here anymore and his arthritis could well be the reason for him not to come over to Europe this time of th= e year. /Ronnie The Omnipotent King of Scania & Court Jester at Cucumber Castle Wanted List http://klippan.seths.se/~kl19082a/ http://www.brothersgibb.com Bee Gees News and Information ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 14:31:03 EDT From: BeeGeesBest@aol.com Subject: Re: Digest-The Bee Gees sing again at last --part1_a7.36c7494d.2cb46067_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/7/2003 2:06:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, Laughinchild@aol.com writes: > Is this fact or an opinion? It is fact. If it is fact, then it backs up my "opinion" > > that it may be quite a while before they work together again, as there are > no > business obligations which prevent Barry from going, How do you know he has no business obligations? You really don't. He does do business that doesn't take place in public, quite a bit of it. just the usual reasons he > > has given for the last few years. Are these reasons, like his fear of flying, not valid? That seems to be what you are saying. > I include public appearence as "work". Good, because it certainly is. But that isn't all that is his work. Joan --part1_a7.36c7494d.2cb46067_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 14:40:45 -0500 (CDT) From: Keppel_Rd@webtv.net (Keppel) Subject: "The Bee Gees War" The Bee Gees War by William F. Buckley Jr. . A big battle is shaping up. The major players are musicians and the industry that retails their wares, and the people (mostly young) who love the music but don't want to pay for it. The musicians and their representatives argue that music is, really, a form of property. Nobody would object to the police coming in to prevent someone from stealing your Sony. So why should anyone object to the police approaching Jane Doe to take her to court for having recorded a thousand songs coming in over the Internet? . On this quarrel I have a singular credential. I am an entirely disinterested party. Perhaps not to the extent of my friend, a distinguished amateur musician and doctor. We met recently and exchanged sheepish confessions of ignorance. Was I, he wanted to know, familiar with any of the names published every day in the newspapers and magazines telling stories of things like the Bee Gees and the Hellzapoppins and the Fires on Earth? The answer was no. Although, I said with wistful thought of rehabilitation, I once wrote an entire book about Elvis Presley. . "Oh?" the doctor asked. "What was it called?" . To my dismay, I could not remember the title until a half- hour later, which was too late. On the other hand, my interlocutor confessed that he had not heard, before reading that morning's obituaries, the name of Johnny Cash. . Well, never mind us aliens. There is a throbbing demand for the music of the pop world. Enter the American Civil Liberties Union. The locus of the fight is Boston College and a student called by the authorities Jane Doe. Ms. Doe, we are given to understand, has a whole library full of music that she has taken off the Internet and, conceivably, passed on to friends and, perhaps inconceivably, sold to non-friends. . The prosecutors are asking about her pursuant to responsibilities vested in them by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a law that gives copyright holders broad powers to pursue suspected infringers via Internet service providers. But the ACLU is objecting, on the grounds that there hasn't been any due process observed. To isolate the identity of a heady consumer of Internet music is not the equivalent of subpoenaing someone suspected of stealing private property, they argue. It does sound as if it were, but professor Jessica Litman of Wayne State University deals nicely with the question. "She suggests," The New York Times reporter tells us, "that the comparison between privacy rights and property rights is the sort of thing that sounds good if you say it fast, but that breaks down under close scrutiny." . Ms. Litman scoffs at the idea that privacy rights protect any and all information privately amassed, denying, e.g., to Newsweek access to your subscription record to Time. "'Property law,' she said," the Times goes on, "'is largely intended to make it possible to sell property, not to keep it secure. The property framework does fit intellectual property because those rights help artists and their representatives trade their art for money.'" . The stuff being picked up on the Internet is certainly copyrighted. And the Millennium Act seeks to stress the point by authorizing law enforcers to move against what, thieves? . Only in America: a raft of organizations is at hand. They march under the banner of P2P United. That stands for "peer-to-peer." The general idea is that the browser who shoots out the latest Bee Gee to you is, really, just a "peer," talking friendly to a peer. An organization called Downhill Battle (downhillbattle.org) fights strenuously for the Jane Does of this world and helps to mobilize legal defense and a legal and moral armory of arguments. . Questions before the house -- and before the courts: (1) Is your right to the information you have generated, or amassed, the equivalent of your right to ownership of the music, or literature, you have written? And (2) do protections that are explicit or inhere in the Constitution shield you from the official (officious?) curiosity of the Justice Department? . Jane Doe of Boston College, if ever we find out who she is, will edge us toward an answer to those questions. And who will provide her with music in jail? Who will be her peer, the faculty adviser or the warden? . Keppel IOM Ambassador to Keppel Road. 'Foolish that I still believe that love should never die' -- Barry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 22:47:24 +0100 From: "Julian Glass" Subject: Re: Digest (10/04/2003 06:02) (#2003-4619) Do poor lead off single go back further than he 80's? 1 Wouldn't Stayin' Alive have got to number one as the first single (in the UK it only reached #4) 2 How about Black Diamond or (dare I say) Lamplight as the first Odessa single. First of May though a worthy single, being itself similar in the style to the erstwhile released Words, didnt have the same impact as though two would have had. As the boys were beginning to become slightly unhip in the UK BD or L would have recovered that position Julian ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 22:55:24 +0100 From: "Julian Glass" Subject: Magnet Revisited - Second Single Those with good memories will remember me being so disappointed over Magnet it go one play and was put away. I got it out again and began to like WYWH and LH very much but still loathed the R&B ones. Well I dug it out again and dubbed it to tape and persevered with three or four listens on a long road journey and lo and behold have found some more of them more listenable to the extent that I love Inseparable and I think it woudl be a hit. However I now find too many of the R&B ones have a too similar chorus structure to each other to be distinct. No pleasing some people is there? Julian ------------------------------ End words@brothersgibb.com Digest [10/07/2003 18:02] ----------------------------------------------------