[joe-frank-list] Re: make Joe's radio public

[David Gutierrez]

This is true. The "cease and desist" is actually available here, here I
used to host Joe's programs:
http://3113.com/joefrank/IMPORTANT.TXT

It was such a gentle "cease and desist" that I didn't realize what it was
until it was discussed on this list a few days later. I just thought Joe
had decided to write me a nice email.

Dave

> There was a very definite request to a member of this newsgroup, which was
> then copied to the newsgroup, to no longer post MP3s for downloading /
> file-sharing.
>
> Not taking a position one way or the other -- just clearing up that
> particular question.
>
> - Matt
> http://www.man-man.org
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chavez, Aaron, ISD" <achavez382 at worldsavings.com>
> To: <rholland356 at yahoo.com>; "Joe Frank Mailing List"
> <joe-frank-list at armory.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 3:09 PM
> Subject: RE: [joe-frank-list] Re: make Joe's radio public
>
>
> I can't speak for Dave, but what his message correctly stated was that
> for quite a while, Joe's work was publicly available and trade was
> sanctioned...he didn't say 'public domain'.  It is no longer publicly
> available and trading, while no longer sanctioned, has now fallen into
> that legally and morally grey domain of 'fair use'.
>
> I comply out of respect for his wishes, not for respect of copyright.
> Although these are in effect the same thing, I don't believe he ever
> said 'cease and desist' in this forum.  Perhaps those that were running
> the swap sites could offer a different perspective.  It would sadden me
> to think that they were approached with anything more than a friendly
> email.
>
> At one point, I suggested to the list the possibility of transcribing
> shows as a joint effort among the members.  My motivation was to make
> his work even more accessible.  At the time, his web site was static and
> hadn't offered anything new is quite a while.  While there was a little
> enthusiasm, most expressed concerns about Joe's wishes.  He cleared up
> any questions with another email to the list asking that we not do that
> as they figured into some new work that he was pursuing.  It seems he
> was referring to his revamped web site.
>
> If the debate here is whether file sharing and derived works are legal,
> I really don't care.  If the argument is that Joe Frank will lose money
> if they are allowed, I agree, I think he would.  But do I think he is
> losing money because fans are copying and distributing his material, I
> say no, they care too much about his ongoing success.
>
> Aaron Chavez
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: joe-frank-list-bounces at armory.com
> [mailto:joe-frank-list-bounces at armory.com] On Behalf Of Robert Holland
> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 9:54 PM
> To: Joe Frank Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [joe-frank-list] Re: make Joe's radio public
>
> Rubbish, Dave.
>
> Joe's work was broadcast, but never in the public
> domain. He and his heirs will retain copyright for
> quite a long time.
>
> I like it that Joe is leveraging the technology that
> others used to share his work. He's asked those who
> shared and collected to please cease and desist from
> distributing the recordings, and certainly to refrain
> from transcribing his work into written scripts.
>
> Robert
>
> --- Dave Dyer <ddyer at real-me.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Joe's work was all public, or at leat 95% of if was,
>> due to the
>> dilligent efforts of his fans, who collected,
>> stored, and supplied
>> bandwidth to distribute it.  All at no cost (and no
>> income) to
>> Joe.  But it did keep the flame alive, and the
>> sometimes inferior
>> technical quality and/or censored for airplay
>> versions served to
>> tease fans into buying real copies on CD.
>>
>> Lets be charitable and say that Joe is in a dry
>> spell in his
>> creative career, and is trying various means to cash
>> in
>> on his glory days, when he had an audience of
>> millions.
>>
>> His live performances are great (so I've read here)
>> but play
>> to those who remember his radio work.  This
>> subscription
>> plan is another way to extract a little more cash
>> from his
>> ageing fan base.  I don't see either of these things
>> as
>> career advancing moves.  Sadly, I fear his remarks
>> upon
>> receiving the lifetime achievement award will prove
>> accurate.
>>
>> I have no idea if joefrank.com is being created by
>> well paid
>> professionals or another cadre of devoted fans, but
>> I can't
>> imagine that this subscription plan will generate
>> enough income
>> to justify a realistic account of the expenses
>> involved.  Meantime
>> it has succeeded in making joe's work a lot less
>> acessable.
>> That can't be good for the long run.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Joe Frank Mailing List
>> joe-frank-list at armory.com
>>
> http://www.armory.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/joe-frank-list
>>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
> www.yahoo.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Joe Frank Mailing List
> joe-frank-list at armory.com
> http://www.armory.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/joe-frank-list
>
>
> ****************************************************************************
> *
> If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify
> the sender immediately. The contents of this e-mail do not amend
> any existing disclosures or agreements unless expressly stated.
> ****************************************************************************
> *
>
> _______________________________________________
> Joe Frank Mailing List
> joe-frank-list at armory.com
> http://www.armory.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/joe-frank-list
> _______________________________________________
> Joe Frank Mailing List
> joe-frank-list at armory.com
> http://www.armory.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/joe-frank-list
>