*the Warning!* via Jane's Addiction.

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Just picked up the new cd single by Jane's Addiction, "Just Because", and inscribed on the inlay card is.....

Thank you for buying this music and for supporting the artists, songwriters, musicians and others who've created it and made it possible. Please remember that this recording and artwork are protected by copyright law. Since you don't own the copyright, it's not yours to distribute. Please don't use internet services that promote the ilegal distribution of copyrighted music, give away ilegal copies of discs or lend discs to others for copying. It's hurting the artists who created the music. It has the same effect as stealing a disc from a store without paying for it*. Applicable laws provide severe civl and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution and digital transmission of copyrighted sound recordings...

*the "same effect as stealing a disc from a store without paying for it." Is there another way to steal from a store?

I relish the irony of this coming from a band whose biggest single to date was called "Been Caught Stealing."

Maybe I haven't really been paying attention, but this is the first time I've read such a warning since the old glory days of "home taping is killing music" (I think I have a Bow Wow Wow 12" with that solemn warning on it).

What say you?

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 16:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Jane's Addiction : R.I.P.

― Farmer Al (King Kobra), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 16:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Wasn't C30 C60 C90 released on casette single with one blank side just incase you wanted to kill music?

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 16:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh, and the single is actually quite dull.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 16:41 (twenty-two years ago)

what about eating sushi and not paying?

― dave q, Tuesday, 15 July 2003 16:41 (twenty-two years ago)

why did you buy the single Alex? i mean, sure you may like it - love it even - but why did YOU not just stop at downloading it?

just curious

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 16:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Ever notice that artists who a) haven't already peaked or b) aren't manufactured generally tend not to give a fuck as much?

― Girolamo Savonarola, Tuesday, 15 July 2003 16:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Dave Q wins.

As it is, I have to read that note as satire...but since there's no real Jane's Addiction, merely a shambling puking revenant, I fear the intent was real.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 16:44 (twenty-two years ago)

I recently bought the four new Kevin Ayers reissues. Not only is there a "COPY CONTROLLED" block on one of the covers (approx. the size of a parental advisory sticker), but a quarter of the back of the inlay card is eaten up with information about the "COPY CONTROLLED" disc -- in three languages. FUCKING ANNOYING.

― Andy K (Andy K), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 16:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh haha -- I wouldn't have bought these reissues if a friend hadn't COPIED the old versions of the albums for me a few years back.

― Andy K (Andy K), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 16:47 (twenty-two years ago)

It's like those old multilanguage explanations of what CDs are.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 16:48 (twenty-two years ago)

what about eating sushi and not paying?

i have also done this by the way...

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 16:52 (twenty-two years ago)

why did you buy the single Alex? i mean, sure you may like it - love it even - but why did YOU not just stop at downloading it?

`Cos I'm a fan and a hapless collector, man. I like the whole package....the "tactile artefact," to quote Tod Ashley from Firewater. Once upon a time, I was quite into Jane's Addiction, so I'm still willing to give them a fair shake.....they're not a band I'm simply curious about, in which case I would've simply sought it out for download. Jane's back catalog seemed promising enough that making the leap to purchase the single (having never heard it) didn't seem like a bad decision. Hahaha...turns out it was. Whatever. I'm still curious to hear the entire album (and, yes, that means I'll buy it).

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 16:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Maybe it wasn't the band, just a standard record company thing....they could be sticking it on all singles now, for all we know....Just a thought....

― Matt Helgeson (Matt Helgeson), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 19:05 (twenty-two years ago)

oddly enough, i was listening to this Queensryche album not 1 hour ago...

http://image.allmusic.com/00/amg/cov200/drf500/f549/f54972hxdrb.jpg

― Kingfish (Kingfish), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 19:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Good fucking God does this new Jane's song rule my ass.

― Evan (Evan), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 21:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Just seen the video - ouch it's super slllllick. The song rocks me actually, but that video is kind of bizarre - they look like U2.

― Alex K (Alex K), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 21:04 (twenty-two years ago)

jane's – the new u2¿

― dyson (dyson), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 22:45 (twenty-two years ago)

That's pretty fuggin' grim, bra.

― Francis Watlington (Francis Watlington), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 23:03 (twenty-two years ago)

I like that new Jane's Addiction single... pretty anthemic and hooky compared to all the stuff that surrounds it on "nu-rock" radio. However Perry's vocals are pretty fucking weak.

I really just wish they called themselves something other than Jane's Addiction.

― donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 23:31 (twenty-two years ago)

en force and deliverance were classic.

― keith (keithmcl), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 01:50 (twenty-two years ago)

yup, they were--but Geoff's vocals are such that I wanna travel back in time to pour whisky down his throat for hours on end, before stabbing him in the larynx a coupla times just to cut out that 1984 vocal styling.

― Kingfish (Kingfish), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 02:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Saw the video this morning. Sounds like everything Jane's Addiction wasn't. Big stupid (not stoopid) rock.

― Phil Freeman (Phil Freeman), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 12:32 (twenty-two years ago)

???

"The Mountain Song" wasn't big stupid rock?

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 14:20 (twenty-two years ago)

The great thing about "Mountain Song" is that I always preferred the way I heard the chorus to Perry's lyrics -- thus, my take:

"Cause ya know, honey
Cause ya know...
Cause ya know, baby...
Cause ya mess me up..."

Forget all that 'cash in now/Ms. Smith' crap.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 15:47 (twenty-two years ago)

That warning message appears almost exactly the same way on the new Fountains of Wayne CD, for what it's worth. I suspect it's standard Capitol boilerplate anti-theft warning yadda yadda, and naught to do with Jane's per se. The disconnect between the message and Jane's big claim to fame makes it all the more jarring.

― Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 17:10 (twenty-two years ago)

eric..........

― kephm, Wednesday, 16 July 2003 17:35 (twenty-two years ago)

RECORDING ARTISTS RECEIVING ABOUT $1 FOR EACH SALE WORTH ABOUT $30 SUCKS BIG- TIME. CDS ARE VERY CHEAP TO PRODUCE SO WHY $30, GREED ON THE PART OF MUSIC COMPANIES MY FRIENDS ENCOURAGES PEOPLE TO HELP THEMSELVES.

― andrew mcpherson, Thursday, 17 July 2003 07:59 (twenty-two years ago)

well, promotion and recording costs do come into it as well, but one could well argue that record company money (and ergo the bands' money) is not often effectively spent.

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Thursday, 17 July 2003 08:04 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.