On
Aug 23, 2006, at 5:27 AM, Futuragenta: nina wrote:
Hello
Bill,
I serve
as liaison for Futura. And in the case, as his representative.
You can
address any concerns with me. This is my primary email and the best way
to get ahold of me.
Best,
Nina
On
8/23/06, Bill wrote:
Hi Nina
my name is Bill Psonis and i am the creator of mowaxcuts podcast. You can find
my podcast in the following address:
http://barenomore.com/mowaxcuts/
My
podcast is dedicated to mowax record label and features 25 minute mixes from
their back catalogue. I got praise for my work even from Solesides records
(quannum/dj shadow record label...). About a month ago i got a sound recording
of a futura interview. the interview was taken by a friend Micke Thorsby about
a year ago in Copenhagen. I published the interview to my podcast without any
changes in three parts.
Of
course i didn't SELL or MADE and MONEY on this. The podcast is a FREE download.
I got
word that Futura himself is quite irritated and wants the interview taken
down. So thats why i am sending you this email to straighten things out. Thanks
for your time and please answer me because i feel bad about the whole
thing.
Kind
regards,
BP-
On
Aug 23, 2006, at 8:44 PM, Futuragenta: nina wrote:
Bill,
I
appreciate your attention on this matter. Futura is not concerned with
any profit produced with this download. Free or not, it was not authorized. He
simply wants it gone.
Interviews
are recorded for journalistic integrity; to issue quotes verbatim, with
veracity. We understand that. But that is the extent of the use and
disclosure of the recorded interview.
Under no
circumstances was Futura informed of the potential to release the recorded
interview. Period. Had he known of such, he may have decided to a. either
not participate or b. be conscious of the ongoing recording and censor himself
accordingly.
If you
have any further questions or are unable to fulfill our request, please let me
know.
Best,
Nina
On
8/23/06, Bill wrote:
Hi Nina,
I
realize that Futura was not informed on the publication of this sound
file/interview but i thought that since the interview and his words were
authorized by him for a printed publication, he would not mind at all. It would
be bad if we used this interview in a commercial site or a magazine without
telling him.
My
podcast was embraced by Solesides and Surrender although i use songs from their
back catalog. I really thought that Futura would actually be happy about that
rather than irritated. Micke and I did this out of admiration and we just
wanted to share this with other fans.
Anyway,
talk is cheap... If Futura insists on that, i will take down the interview, but
i think that his fans will be disappointed by this attitude. I am sad that an
open minded artist with a punk background objects to this. Please let me now.
Regards,
BP-
On Aug 24, 2006, at 6:32 PM,
Futuragenta: nina wrote:
Bill,
Well, as
I stated, he does mind. The interview was actually authorized for a magazine; if that did not come to fruition
for whatever reason, that should have been the end of it. The sound files
released two years later? Dated, irrelevant, and more importantly, unauthorized.
Again,
had he been informed of potential podcast distribution, he would have decided
accordingly.
[edited
due to unauthorized references]
Futura
remains who he has always been. There is no need to call that into
question. His kindness should not be mistaken for
weakness. "Openminded" and "punk" is
not synonymous with unpaid and exploited. No true fan will get
behind that.
Please
confirm when the interview has been removed.
Thank
you,
Nina
On
8/24/06, Bill wrote:
I will
remove the interview but it will take some days. I will inform you when its
done, but i have some last remarks/questions.
" "Openminded" and
"punk" is not synonymous with unpaid and exploited. No
true fan will get behind that. "
I don't
think that i exploited the name of Futura...and you said that Futura is not
concerned in making any profit. I will publish our email conversation in
my blog so that anyone can read whats really happened and decide for himself.
P.S
[edited
due to unauthorized references]
Regards
again,
BP-
On Aug 24, 2006, at
9:19 PM, Futuragenta: nina wrote:
Bill,
I am not
familiar with the procedure for removing podcasts, but if it takes some days,
so be it.
As far
as your closing remarks are concerned::::
"I
don't think that i exploited the name of Futura...and you said that Futura is not
concerned in making any profit. I will publish our email conversation in
my blog so that anyone can read whats really happened and decide for
himself."
Exploitation
takes many forms, as does compensation. You continue to stress that you are
providing a free download and therefore no exploitation is occurring. Your
definition of the word is very limited and ignores other denotations.
"
Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes" [www.bartleby.com ]
Simply
put: you are benefiting [downloads, attention, hype, etc] at the expense of
another. I do not know how you fail to see that.
Your
most recent email informs me of the fact you will be publishing our email transmissions,
which further illustrates [and reinforces] all I have outlined above. This
incident is rather unfortunate, as you approached me as seeming Futura
supporter/fan who wanted to straighten things out. Instead, you want to
debate the legitimacy of his Punk and hint to repercussions with his fan base.
This matter is simple and has been from our initial
contact. The material was not intended for public unfettered use, and
that is precisely what is occurring now. It is equivalent to having many
pictures of yourself from a day, publically presenting one, and having someone
pilfer through your photo album and take the rest for mass
consumption. Many artists are remarkably private, and with good
reason. Actions like this only encourage that.
If Futura goes out of his way to grant an interview, that should
be respected, not manipulated. We don't need reasons for artists to
become progressively MORE private, ensuring that we no longer hear
anything from them. Fundamentally, it's a privacy and respect
issue. This is disrespectful.
[edited
due to unauthorized references]
Nina
On 8/25/06, Bill
wrote:
Nina, the podcast is
hosted in a public server (archive.org) and is protected under a creative
common licence (http://creativecommons.org/).
It will take some days to take it off.
As for my remarks.
I.
I insist that i didn't
exploit Futura's name to my own. I have a FREE podcast that honours the
legandary Mo' Wax label and a personal blog that offers free info on art, toys
and clothes.
"downloads, hype
and attention" as you say has nothing to do with me.
I will publish
our conversation because i want fans to have an objective opinion about
the removal of the interview. This is the power and Democracy of internet.
You said that "The material was not intended for public
unfettered use". What do you mean by that??? A printed magazine isn't
public??? I don't see the difference between a podcast, an online webzine and a
magazine. As long as Futura's words remain unaltered, it's the same. If Futura
wished to remain private he should not give the interview in the first place.
[edited
due to unauthorized references]
BP-
On Aug 26, 2006, at
7:58 AM, futura wrote:
Mr.
Psonis
thank
you for your time, I understand my associate [Miss Nina] has contacted you . .
. re: the [ILLEGITIMATE] podcast.
a very
simple request, we asked; that you please.respectfully remove what we see:saw
as UNAUTHORIZED [and.or] UNAPPROVED.
however:
I can see [now] from the [correspondences] that [you] have missed the point; or
the boat of my ARGUMENT. and please Mr. Psonis, do NOT play ignorant with me.
mea
culpa. look it up.
let me
be very clear about this: may I call you BILL? and be [warned] Bill, you have
engaged my ANGER and now: you shall have the WRATH. or more specifically; how
[you] will become; the VOICE [or] LA VOZ.
[because
if you don't publish this; as part of the DEMOCRATIC process; I obviously will]
how are you some good samaritan? friend of the working man? a BISHOP?
last
things first. I am not a [punk] and do [not] accept that [nor] appreciate; that
description as some badge of honor or courage. I'm from another movement non
EUROPEAN, we imported it; where being a [punk] isn't about a music scene or
political position or perhaps your definition? of rebel/renegade. unacceptable
semantics: I'm from the streets of NEW YORK where being a [punk] is to the
equivalent of ???? must I be more specific? draw you some bathroom GRAFFITI?
think of PRISON movies, perhaps you have.
without
even debating you on what's wrong with an interview that I agreed to do for a
magazine ?????? and please stop focusing on financial compensation or the suggestion
of gain. it only reflects your own necessity. this has nothing to do with that.
doing any PRINT [keyword] interview is never a PAY to PLAY. the exposure and
[desire] or [opportunity] to be exposed is the trade off. NOTHING more NOTHING
less. I understand that; end of story. I'm HALF a CENTURY. c'mon now; some
FOREIGN language [Danish?] article in a magazine; that THEY.MAY never even send
me. so what! like what? I'm waiting for it? I'm such an EGO maniac I have a
book with clippings?????? ok, maybe half correct.
hahahahahaha
turns out; they couldn't even get it published. great job!
under NORMAL circumstances; that TAPE is
used to; provide accomplice to written notes and accurate specific
"quotations" to ACCENTUATE the flavour? of the WRITER'S article. I
mean? isn't he writing a article PRO [or] CON where my words are INTERWOVEN?
you know; like some FABRIC? doesn't [he] present a POINT OF VIEW? with ORIGINAL
opinion content maybe a PHOTO of the ARTIST? whomever. or is THIS some brand
new style MAGAZINE; I've never heard of?? . . . where they just translate the
almost TWO HOUR interview LIKE ____ [fuck it; let's just print it] do you
[sorta] see the problem?
hahahahahaha
turns out; they couldn't even get THAT published. great job! so they RANG YOU
UP.
NOW
here's the ROOT of the EVIL. let's say [many months later; more than a year?
moons?] I've given this/a very open&candid almost PROVOCATIVE [the
sensationalist love that] accounting of [MY] life in detail; someone ?????? who
[perhaps] never got it published [though they did] decides they can just go
ahead a present this to YOU. HIM. HER. THEM. EVERYONE. NO ONE. ANYONE??????
without getting ONE FACT correct FIRST.
MY
APPROVAL!!!! which I would NOT have given. why????
because
hey? I give someone a few hours of my life; in good faith respectfully. for no
gain and equal exchange. but in fact; Bill, it never is equal. the artist; be
[he or her] punk or pioneer is always going to get jerked, esp the punks.
[edited
due to unauthorized references]
the fact
was; after I asked a few sites to take down the link; they did [you caught a
nice rush to the site] and that diminished. I was done with it; and YOU were a
NOBODY, but you had to raise your hand and ask some dumb ass questions; even
trying to present some position of credibility like what? YOU KNOW PEOPLE.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
you
opened a CAN of WORMS. although indirectly, and maybe without MALICE, I'm not
sure yet???? I will watch what you do now. for now; I want this up on your
site; [almost went critic] no ADMNISTRATIVE bumbo jumbo; [corporate lingo] just
do it!
I don't
know you; so I don't care. this is just a BUSINESS decision. your alliances and
allegiances; are with the enemy or the perception of such. and that means
[you're] already a suspect. in NEW YORK we call that GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION.
prove me
wrong. when the lights get turned on; most roaches run for cover.
futuradosmil.cubic
zirconia.flom
On 8/26/06, Bill
wrote:
"dear"
futura,
my answer will not be
as big as yours but i will try answer most of your arguments.
The podcast is NOT
illegitimate as you say. Is is under a Creative Commons license. If you don't
know what this is, go and check it (http://creativecommons.org/).
I already said
the interview WILL be removed. I just wanted to have a discussion and present
my case.
I really don't
appreciate it calling me Bill since your whole email is more like a threat and
ironic than a discussion.
For the
"punk" characterization, i guess that you understand that it was
to honor you rather than offend you. I meant your work with Clash back in
the 80's.
As for the interview i
would like to straighten something out. Micke, who got the interview,
IMMEDIATELY suggested that i should take it down when he learned your
objection.
I agreed with him but
i just wanted to contact you to ask the reasons.
Micke offered me this
interview WITHOUT any exchange, just because he is a fan and he felt it
was the right thing (so did i).
I am not in the
journalism business, so i can't really tell the difference between a printed or
a radio interview. I thought that since you opened you heart for this
interview, you would actually be happy about the podcast.
[edited
due to unauthorized references]
So, that's all from
me. I will contact your agent as soon as the interview is removed. And of
course i will publish our little discussion.
BP-
------
bare, greece