YTSEJAM Digest 5774 Today's Topics: 1) Ice Age by Jared Emery 2) Re: YTSEJAM digest 5771 by "Dr. Mosh" 3) Re: My last word on Napster by "Dr. Mosh" 4) Re: Freakin' English guns in the Kitchen by "Dr. Mosh" 5) RE: YTSEJAM digest 5771 by "Souter, Jan-Michael" 6) final ytseshirt prices by Joshua Rasiel 7) DVD PAL & NTSC ? by Paul Ninnis 8) Re: Napster is ethically legitimite, because: by Mustaine Fan 9) Re: Napster again by email_address_removed (Steve Chew) 10) Re: Napster is ethically legitimite, because: by "Dr. Mosh" 11) WinMX by "Dave Grimm" 12) NapsterNapsterNapsterNapsterNapsterNapsterNapsterNapsterNapster by Jens Johansson 13) Re: final ytseshirt prices by "Dan McCormack" 14) Hi you 32609 by email_address_removed 15) chris' last vowels by Joshua Rasiel 16) Re: YTSEJAM digest 5773 by "M P" 17) Re: YTSEJAM digest 5773 by "Carlos A. Alfaro" 18) Decloaking before firing (some DTC) by email_address_removed 19) F Web-TV ! by "Souter, Jan-Michael" 20) AudioGalaxy by "Varga Andras" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:49:52 -0700 From: Jared Emery To: Jared Emery Subject: Ice Age Message-ID: Ice Age has a arcticle in Billboard this week..Check it out! New album due = March 6th on Magna Carta! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:38:15 -0800 From: "Dr. Mosh" To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: YTSEJAM digest 5771 Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 06:58:55AM -0800, Paul Evans wrote: > > > he tapes it, gives it to a friend? You've lost control of "distribution" > of your > > music. > > So explain please how this invalidates my statement? Just because people > can make tapes means that Napster doesn't facilitate the illegal > distribution of music? Sorry, I'm missing your logic here. You're missing the logic because you assume tape trading is illegal I assume. It has never been ruled illegal, no one has EVER been arrested for trading tapes... Although there is a case in some god forsaken european country where they arrested some punks for downloading mp3s, won't those evil little slimy bastards who download mp3s ever learn? > I have no misconceptions over this. You get as perfect a copy as the > encoding level allows. If people had the bandwidth for wave files, they'd > be posting and downloading those too. Hell, they probably are. Well, 128k or 160k or even 320k is far from perfect. > > And yeah, the convenience is part of the problem. > > But again, you're throwing junk up that goes away from the main point - > artists' control over their own work. Like I said, don't release it, you have full control. When you sign a record contract, unless you pay your own production costs, you are basically letting the record company own all the distribution rights 100% for your work, you lose control already at that point. > Yeah, but you're forgetting your own "perfect" copy argument... I didn't forget, like I said, mp3s aren't perfect copies. > Geez Doc, you were gentle on me. You must be getting mellow in your old > age. I'll try to piss you off a bit more the next time I venture out of > lurk mode... :-) You're not going to piss me off about Napster or mp3s, because regardless, I'll still have my massive mp3 archive and my gigantic bootleg archive. -The Doc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:43:25 -0800 From: "Dr. Mosh" To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: My last word on Napster Message-ID: I will include Ptacek's original post, just in case some of you have missed it. His argument is very eloquent and well written out. The only problem: It's based on conjecture. He is ASSUMING what you the person would use Napster for, that is where the problem lies. Napster never said what they released Napster for, whatever reason you use it for is your reason be it bad / good or for profit. On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:22:45AM -0800, Ptacek Chris-CPTACEK1 wrote: > > I'm not interested in changing any minds. I'm just concerned with > letting people get away with bogus lies to convince each other that Napster > is cool. Here's my last word on Napster, in a simple analogy: > > Napster is BAD/WRONG because they are attempting to profit from > assisting people in stealing music (whether the listener would have bought > the music or not, if you didn't pay for it, and didn't obtain it by legal > means, you stole it). It is precisely the same thing as a security guard at > an electronics store getting paid to knowingly turn his back as you steal a > TV. Sure, you may find that you like the TV a lot, and will buy one for the > family room later. That guy still committed a crime. Napster ISN'T your > friend. They AREN'T trying to help the world show the "Big 5" why they > should be charging less for cds. They're a corporation, and their goal is > to MAKE MONEY. People don't give venture capital to you so that you can > make the world a better place. Too many of you are applying some kind of > "grand scheme" morality to this company, as though they give a rat's ass > about you, the artists, your crusades or anything else. > > MP3s (as opposed to Napster) are much more debatable. MP3s have a > purpose. However, free distribution, without rights for the artist, is not > viable. A musician can DECIDE to give his music away for free. You can not > pretend that taking this choice away from him is not an ethical issue. You > can choose to be as greedy and disrespectful as you want, but you can not > dance around the underlying concept. Free music would be great, but in our > current climate, that has to be a CHOICE. I don't know anyone who can > afford to record a professional work and not receive some reimbursement for > it. Maybe a lot of you are forgetting how small the market is for the kind > of music you love. > You do make more money when you tour, but how often do you see non > major label acts playing at real venues, with ticket prices they can really > profit off? Last time I saw Tribal Tech there were 150 people there. > Tickets were $12. If they got ALL of that money, we're talking about guys > who can get $150+ an hour if they want to sell studio work, making $450 each > (less if they pay their sound guy, who was keyboardist Scott Kinsey's dad) > for a gig, and then paying for equipment for the tour and truck > rental/lodging/cost of living etc... it's just not as lucrative as you > think. Spock's Beard had closer to 200 people at the same venue, but > divided between 5 people. It's just not viable to take away any part of > these folks' income, unless you have provided another way for them to get > by. > > I won't participate in this any further, because it is an important > topic to me, and I don't want to get childishly out of control again over > it; and I find some of the repulsive whining from some members of this list > to be pathetic. I'm really sorry that I had to take part in distracting you > guys from the other non-Dream Theater topics on this list, with a topic that > impacts upon all of music. IMO Chuck/KorgX3 in particular, should be the > last to throw those stones (no offense). > > - Chris > aka Madsman > email_address_removed ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:46:26 -0800 From: "Dr. Mosh" To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: Freakin' English guns in the Kitchen Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:46:07AM -0800, Brian Hansen wrote: > > > --- Andreas Schaefer wrote regarding > Freak Kitchen: > > > I just knew you wouldn't let it go and had to post > > something to > > that effect. ;-) > > You knew? You mean you handed a Second Amendment > supporting, gun-rights advocating, Libertarian a > recording with a sarcastic anti-gun song on it and > then waited for a post about it? That's not very nice. > ;o) > Just to clarify, the 2nd Amendment was created by our forefathers to protect us from the evil sonofabitches that would try to take away our freedom to download perfect digital copies of music from starving artists. ;-) -The Doc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:58:06 -0600 From: "Souter, Jan-Michael" To: "'ytsejam@torchsong.com'" Subject: RE: YTSEJAM digest 5771 Message-ID: <74ACE5A6CB89D3119E6F00609720274A037D193E@ISDCRE00> Oddly enough, don't tapes have better quality than MP3 files? Let's get off Napster and get back into arguing audio tape trading. heh > -----Original Message----- > From: Dr. Mosh [SMTP:email_address_removed > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 1:53 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: YTSEJAM digest 5771 > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 06:58:55AM -0800, Paul Evans wrote: > > > > > he tapes it, gives it to a friend? You've lost control of > "distribution" > > of your > > > music. > > > > So explain please how this invalidates my statement? Just because > people > > can make tapes means that Napster doesn't facilitate the illegal > > distribution of music? Sorry, I'm missing your logic here. > > You're missing the logic because you assume tape trading is illegal I > assume. > It has never been ruled illegal, no one has EVER been arrested for trading > tapes... Although there is a case in some god forsaken european country > where they arrested some punks for downloading mp3s, won't those evil > little slimy bastards who download mp3s ever learn? > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:04:12 -0500 From: Joshua Rasiel To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: final ytseshirt prices Message-ID: The shirts will be done in the near future -and they'll only cost $10 plus shipping! In other words, after shipping, $14 for most of you. Anything larger than XL will require a $1 surcharge, so that'd be $11 or $15 to your door. And remember, I'm being charged $1 for every size over XL. So even though a XXXL should logically cost you $17, according to my highly flawed pricing paradigm, it won't. Anything larger than XL is a flat price of $11, XL or under is $10, plus standard $4 USPS priority mail. if you live somewhere weird, try checking out my page for shipping info, i have the most common shipping zones listed there. In a nutshell, Canada & Mexico are $7 and most everywhere else that Priority Mail can be sent is $9. I'm double checking that cuz it seems expensive. And I did a little "user testing" on a USPS priority mail bag. I don't know what those bags are made of, but I stuffed 4 shirts in there and proceeding to beat the living hell out of that bag for half an hour. It emerged wrinkled but unscathed. So, I would place 4 shirts as the absolute maximum that could be sent for the $4 shipping price. More than that, you'll have to double the shipping for another bag. Or you could take a nice trip to NY and i'll meet you at the airport to hand you your shirts, and then I'll mug you. Welcome to Queens! As always, there'll be yellow and black. I also was going to do 10 light-gray shirts, but instead, those will be white. And based on my feedback, a limited number of girl-shirts will be available in black, less in yellow, and none in white. I'll keep you all informed, let me know if there's any new questions. -josh ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:13:28 +1030 From: Paul Ninnis To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: DVD PAL & NTSC ? Message-ID: <61BA286C6C56D11187B50000E83A13CB27BBC6@EDDIE> > Mike said the DVD thats coming out is going to be "region free" which > means it should work in everyone's player. I was reading my instruction > manual to my player, and it says it can ONLY plat Region 1 encoded discs. Is the DVD being release in both NTSC and PAL resolution? Not sure what to believe; CDNow and DVDExpress both state that it is region encoded 1, and obviously NTSC for the US, and Amazon.co.uk state that it is Region encoded 2, and PAL. As an Australian I'd prefer a region free (Region 0) disc (which I really hope is the case) and would prefer a PAL release due to its increased resolution. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:21:29 -0800 (PST) From: Mustaine Fan To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: Napster is ethically legitimite, because: Message-ID: I just have a few things to say in response: (Scroll down) --- Eyal Ben David wrote: > > A: People who download songs on napster usually don't do > it instead of > buying the CD, because downloading a full CD you'd > otherwise buy is more > trouble than > its worth. I'm taking it that you don't know anyone with DSL or a cable modem or a T1 line and a CD-RW. They can rip an entire CD in 30-60 minutes if they want assuming the song's available. > Hence, it only helps bringing an artist's > music to a whole > new croud who wouldn't have bought the CD, and makes the > artist work harder > by not letting > him have a one-hit-record, sold in millions of > copies . Agreed there. But yet, the backstreet boys are still big and such, so I'm still waiting for this benifit. > B: Let's face it, the guys who make the money off of the > CDs are the Record > Companys, and let's just say that Elektra doesn't suffer > from shortage in > the field of > money right now. There are a lot more people who are in the music industry other than artist and the record companies. And the bands and companies that are most prone to damage are the smaller ones. Not all companies are Elektra and Epic that have lots of money. Also, if the companies feel that there are a decrease in sales, they'll jack up the price so that they're happy with the profit. > C: It helps new bands (like mine, for example) by giving > them an option of > distributing their music to firends, by telling them to > download songs from > Napster. Yes, this is legitimaite, and positive. You have this right because it's your music, and Napster does help share non-copyrighted materials. > D: Let's face it, except for LITS, where can you find > the DT show in Milan > '93. Similar to distributing your own music, this isn't copyrighted. I love finding live recordings. But, as been stated clearly by everone, it is curently impossible for Napster to regulate legal and illegal uses. I know many people who uses Napster for legitimite purposes, and I know many people who use it illegally. Put yourself in their shoes. How would you feel if you spent days writing songs, days recording songs, days mixing songs and not get paid. Especially if you own your own studio and equipment (which cost many thousands of dollars). Although this isn't the case, it's the same principal - Getting paid for your work. There's an obvious problem with companies and stores overcharging for a CD, but ignoring copyright laws can make it worse. > E: The most important one: it gives us a chance of > making a statement and to > show the guys in the Record Companys that they can't > rase the prices, and > have us > buying their records like lab rats forever! I wish this was true, but it isn't. We have CD's with no copyright protection on it. If people start abusing sharing privilege, then there will (and is) a demand for copyright protection. The protection must be developed ($$) and then put on all CD's and hardware ($$$) and guess who pays for it all? The cosumer. Something very similar has been proved with computer security and virus control. This isn't ment to be harsh, it's just my views on the blessful and devilish Napster. Have Cool, Will Travel Marc. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices! http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:10:35 -0500 (EST) From: email_address_removed (Steve Chew) To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Cc: email_address_removed Subject: Re: Napster again Message-ID: email_address_removed wrote: > > I'm not interested in changing any minds. I'm just concerned with >letting people get away with bogus lies to convince each other that Napster >is cool. Here's my last word on Napster, in a simple analogy: > Your post was well stated except for this analogy, IMO. See below. > Napster is BAD/WRONG because they are attempting to profit from >assisting people in stealing music (whether the listener would have bought >the music or not, if you didn't pay for it, and didn't obtain it by legal > Be careful here because you're implying that a non-profit Napster is not necessarily bad/wrong. I think you intended to imply that but I wasn't sure. >the music or not, if you didn't pay for it, and didn't obtain it by legal >means, you stole it). It is precisely the same thing as a security guard at >an electronics store getting paid to knowingly turn his back as you steal a >TV. [...] > Downloading an MP3 illegally (via Napster or whatever) is *not* the same as taking a TV from a store (or a CD even). In one case, you have taken a physical object and removed it from another person's possession (stealing the TV). In the other case, you have copied the product and left the original in the person's possession (download via Napster). This is really not the same thing (not to say that it is necessarily right either). Since they are not the same your analogy fails, you cannot conclude that the security guard and Napster are equally bad/wrong. Using this analogy will not strengthen your arguments against Napster -- the rest of your arguments do a better job. There are certainly moral/ethical questions in today's world when deciding to download an MP3 for free instead of paying the artist for it. Steve ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:08:44 -0800 From: "Dr. Mosh" To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: Napster is ethically legitimite, because: Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 03:31:24PM -0800, Mustaine Fan wrote: > > I just have a few things to say in response: (Scroll down) > > --- Eyal Ben David wrote: > > > > A: People who download songs on napster usually don't do > > it instead of > > buying the CD, because downloading a full CD you'd > > otherwise buy is more > > trouble than > > its worth. > > I'm taking it that you don't know anyone with DSL or a > cable modem or a T1 line and a CD-RW. They can rip an > entire CD in 30-60 minutes if they want assuming the > song's available. > Hmm... let's see: Time to download from a fast source: 5 Uncompress entire CD: 5 Burn to CD with a 8x burner: 10 (75 minutes of music) Total of: 20 minutes I'd say yer pretty close with the 30 minute estimate :) -The Doc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:45:31 -0600 From: "Dave Grimm" To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: WinMX Message-ID: I'm famously naive, so maybe this is a joke, but if not - unbelievable :( ]From the WinMX website: Copyright The WinMX software application and the entire contents of WinMX.com are Copyright (C) 2000 by Frontcode Technologies. WinMX, the WinMX logo, and all trademarks, service marks and trade names of WinMX and/or Frontcode Technologies appearing in the WinMX software, on the Frontcode.com web site or the WinMX.com web site are owned by Frontcode Technologies. The intellectual property rights of the publisher and authors of the WinMX software application will be enforced to the fullest extent of the law. Feel free to flame, then, I agree, let's drop it.... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:29:23 -0500 From: Jens Johansson To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: NapsterNapsterNapsterNapsterNapsterNapsterNapsterNapsterNapster Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20010221002923.007e4c10@localhost> On 16:23 2001/02/20 -0800, you wrote: > Downloading an MP3 illegally (via Napster or whatever) is *not* > the same as taking a TV from a store (or a CD even). In one case, you > have taken a physical object and removed it from another person's > possession (stealing the TV). In the other case, you have copied the > product and left the original in the person's possession (download via > Napster). This is really not the same thing (not to say that it is > necessarily right either). Since they are not the same your analogy > fails, you cannot conclude that the security guard and Napster are > equally bad/wrong. This is a very common pro-Napster argument. They are not the same thing exactly, the same way "stealing and using a $100 bill" and "using a copy of a $100 bill" are not the same exactly. Anyway, even though the original is still there, it is easily for anyone with imagination to imagine that a person that obtained a copy of that music file is less likely to buy the CD. And of course, someone else in his turn can make a copy of that copy, etc. Is "less likely" equal to "a lot less likely" or "just a little bit less likely?" That's a religious issue. I lean toward the former, but I'm a cynical bastard with 20 years experience of economics as relates to music. :) The distinction between "physical" or "non-physical" objects is pretty meaningless nowadays, as anyone that's been convicted for selling credit card numbers or serving up copies of Microsoft software might be able to elucidate (from behind bars). > Using this analogy will not strengthen your arguments > against Napster -- the rest of your arguments do a better job. There are > certainly moral/ethical questions in today's world when deciding to > download an MP3 for free instead of paying the artist for it. And also "legal questions." I have said publicly many times before that I would accept whatever the courts decided, albeit probably with much gnashing of teeth if I didn't agree with it. Now it seems the appeals court mulled this over for a while, and struck a bit of a blow against Napster. But I'm quite sure the legal machinery has not made its last grumble in regards to this matter. :) Blathered about this many times in the past, sorry again. But the issues are extremely important for niche music in the future. I summarized previous blathering at http://www.panix.com/~jens/naspter.par . --- Jens. (http://www.panix.com/~jens/) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 01:21:38 -0500 From: "Dan McCormack" To: Subject: Re: final ytseshirt prices Message-ID: <022901c09bce$9061f140$message_id_removed> ]From: "Joshua Rasiel" Subject: final ytseshirt prices > And I did a little "user testing" on a USPS priority mail bag. I don't > know what those bags are made of DuPont Tyvek :) moo. *** END OF TRANSMISSION *** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:45:13 -0800 From: email_address_removed To: Subject: Hi you 32609 Message-ID:

Celebs are waiting for you, we invite you to come in. To enter, p= lease CLICK HERE.=

Please click here to be REMOVED<= /a> from our mailing list.
------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 05:08:46 -0500 From: Joshua Rasiel To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: chris' last vowels Message-ID: >From: Ptacek Chris-CPTACEK1 >To: "'ytsejam@torchsong.com'" Did you pick this username? There aren't enough consenants in your name already? Now it just looks demonic. josh ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:16:14 -0500 From: "M P" To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: YTSEJAM digest 5773 Message-ID: >From: "Carlos A. Alfaro" >Subject: Re: Kevin and bass, Audio Gnone Invisible? >Vera played on some of the songs on DAFR, but i was talking about You go >now, My bad. I was really pointing out that Kevin does play bass, though :) >From: Michael Kizer >Subject: Re: Napzter > >While reading this a thing came to my mind. How is that different from > >owing a postcard with Mona Lisa, or a fake painting of it> The >only problem with that argument is that the Mona Lisa is >probably old enough that reproductions can be made because it is basically >in the public domain. Check any reference book in which she appears in, and you'll see who owns or gave the image for use, usually in small type down the side of the picture. This is never free. The Louvre is getting kickbacks. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:42:05 -0400 From: "Carlos A. Alfaro" To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: YTSEJAM digest 5773 Message-ID: M P wrote: > >From: "Carlos A. Alfaro" > >Subject: Re: Kevin and bass, Audio Gnone Invisible? > >Vera played on some of the songs on DAFR, but i was talking about You go > >now, > > My bad. I was really pointing out that Kevin does play bass, though :) > > Yeha i really didnt know that, i always thought when it said "bass" it meant by means of synthetizer :) now we can speculate what kind of nightmare cinema we couldve gotten with kevin in the band Carlos A. Alfaro Internet Solutions, Inc P.O. Box 29742 San Juan, PR 00929 Tel(787) 281-6660 Fax (787) 281-7888 =============================== Internet Solutions, Inc. - Offering quality Internet products and services Access- Dedicated and dial-up, ISDN, Web Hosting, E-commerce, Networking ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:53:53 -0500 (EST) From: email_address_removed To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Decloaking before firing (some DTC) Message-ID: Hey Jammers, Coming out of Lurk mode ( yawn ..stretch..scratch ) I think no matter what side your on we can ALL AGREE THAT THE NAPSTER DEBATE SHOULD END TWO DAYS AGO. I have no opinion whatsoever because I use Webtv and can't download shit. To register my opinions on something I do have experience with...... Whole Chocolate Milk. Toast before Butter, Peanut Butter before Jelly with Jelly on top but what kind of Jelly, Strawberry or Grape? Strawberry on a clear day Grape on a cloudy day. Now for Some DT CONTENT..... Since the bullshit clogging the jam recently I have lost track of who's doing what in the side project recordings Transatlantic 2 Mullmuzzler2 and so on Can someone update me on how far along things are.? BTW someone mentioned a MP forum recently, what's the deal, sounds interesting. Where do I sign up? Anybody else gonna miss Dale Earnhardt? I sure as Hell will. Blessed Be Billy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:22:09 -0600 From: "Souter, Jan-Michael" Subject: F Web-TV ! Message-ID: <74ACE5A6CB89D3119E6F00609720274A037D1971@ISDCRE00> hahaha! Billy! You just gave the best anti-Web-TV argument, EVER ! That was great. JM > -----Original Message----- > From: email_address_removed [SMTP:email_address_removed > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 10:04 AM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Decloaking before firing (some DTC) > > > Coming out of Lurk mode ( yawn ..stretch..scratch ) > I think no matter what side your on we can ALL AGREE THAT THE NAPSTER > DEBATE SHOULD END TWO DAYS AGO. > > I have no opinion whatsoever because I use Webtv and can't download > shit. > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:12:44 +0100 From: "Varga Andras" To: Subject: AudioGalaxy Message-ID: <000001c09c34$4b326440$7a3f46c3@computername> > Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:09:56 -0600 > From: "Souter, Jan-Michael" > To: "'ytsejam@torchsong.com'" > Cc: "'email_address_removed'" > Subject: RE: %#$#^!! Napster, of course > Message-ID: <74ACE5A6CB89D3119E6F00609720274A037D1920@ISDCRE00> > > Meanwhile, forget Napster.....there is a MUCH better program called > AudioGalaxy out there. It is web-based and very user-friendly. ..and it's spyware. It installs WebTracker Companion, or something like that, which sends data from your computer to somewhere else, no one knows where. Be sure to have a good firewall program. Apart from this, AG is better than napster, but I really don't care for either one. ------------------------------ End of YTSEJAM Digest 5774 **************************