f



Can the RIAA go after non-sharers?

Hardly a day goes by these days when we don't hear about new lawsuits
filed by the RIAA.  I know they're targeting people who use P2P
software (like Kazaa) and who download and/or share MP3's illegally. 
But what if I DON'T do any of these things?  

I don't have P2P software - never used it at all, never will.  I don't
download MP3's, and I don't *share* them - illegally or otherwise.  (I
do have MP3's on my computer and listen to them via iTunes, but these
are all ripped from CDs THAT I OWN and that I BOUGHT LEGALLY - and
again, these are not shared, nobody downloads them from my computer)

Am I still a target?  As I said, I have no sharing of any kind.  I
don't download either.

-- 
�There are no mistakes in love.�
- Patty Smyth
0
Keeper
9/11/2003 5:31:11 PM
comp.sys.mac.apps 21416 articles. 3 followers. xxx613 (1334) is leader. Post Follow

170 Replies
7681 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 58

In article <110920031231089587%no@spam.invalid>,
 Keeper of the Purple Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

> I don't have P2P software - never used it at all, never will.  I don't
> download MP3's, and I don't *share* them - illegally or otherwise.  (I
> do have MP3's on my computer and listen to them via iTunes, but these
> are all ripped from CDs THAT I OWN and that I BOUGHT LEGALLY - and
> again, these are not shared, nobody downloads them from my computer)
> 
> Am I still a target?  As I said, I have no sharing of any kind.  I
> don't download either.

Nope, you would not be a target. Making copies of stuff you already own 
is not copyright infringement.
0
Pat
9/11/2003 5:56:09 PM
Keeper of the Purple Twilight:
> Hardly a day goes by these days when we don't hear about new lawsuits
> filed by the RIAA.  I know they're targeting people who use P2P
> software (like Kazaa) and who download and/or share MP3's illegally. 
> But what if I DON'T do any of these things...
> Am I still a target?  As I said, I have no sharing of any kind.  I
> don't download either.

You ought to be able to reasonably answer this for yourself. Who --
other than the RIAA -- can say with certainty whether they will target
you? Do you have a history of being charged with crimes that you did
not commit?

I think that the RIAA's methods are a bit draconian, *but* the
America-is-already-dumbed-down crowd are trying to make this out to be
a complex issue. Theft isn't really very complex. Are you the copyright
holder? No? Then you may not distribute the work.

I wonder if it's good for our society to have a generation of people
who think that stealing is OK as long as one steals something that is
easy to steal. Will this generation legalize car theft in the case of
unlocked cars, or cars with the keys left in them, or perhaps legalize
the theft of any item that is unattended by its owner?

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
0
Davoud
9/11/2003 6:00:27 PM
In article <110920031400273928%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net>
wrote:

> You ought to be able to reasonably answer this for yourself. Who --
> other than the RIAA -- can say with certainty whether they will target
> you? Do you have a history of being charged with crimes that you did
> not commit?

No, but who can stand up to the RIAA?
> 
> I think that the RIAA's methods are a bit draconian, *but* the
> America-is-already-dumbed-down crowd are trying to make this out to be
> a complex issue. Theft isn't really very complex. Are you the copyright
> holder? No? Then you may not distribute the work.

I'm not distributing anything!
> 
> I wonder if it's good for our society to have a generation of people
> who think that stealing is OK as long as one steals something that is
> easy to steal. Will this generation legalize car theft in the case of
> unlocked cars, or cars with the keys left in them, or perhaps legalize
> the theft of any item that is unattended by its owner?

Look, I already said:  All the MP3s I have, are ripped FROM CDs THAT I
OWN AND THAT I BOUGHT LEGALLY.  Nobody else ever sees these MP3s.  I
don't share them, nobody downloads them, I don't use P2P software, and
I don't even make "mix" CDs.  All I do is listen to these MP3s when I'm
sitting at my computer.  I'm not stealing anything.

-- 
�There are no mistakes in love.�
- Patty Smyth
0
Keeper
9/11/2003 6:06:16 PM
In article 
<cwnarf-14E82F.15260911092003@nntp-stjh-01-01.rogers.nf.net>,
 Pat Janes <cwnarf@arjpbzz.arg> wrote:

> In article <110920031231089587%no@spam.invalid>,
>  Keeper of the Purple Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > I don't have P2P software - never used it at all, never will.  I don't
> > download MP3's, and I don't *share* them - illegally or otherwise.  (I
> > do have MP3's on my computer and listen to them via iTunes, but these
> > are all ripped from CDs THAT I OWN and that I BOUGHT LEGALLY - and
> > again, these are not shared, nobody downloads them from my computer)
> > 
> > Am I still a target?  As I said, I have no sharing of any kind.  I
> > don't download either.
> 
> Nope, you would not be a target. Making copies of stuff you already own 
> is not copyright infringement.

Maybe it's time for a boycott of the music industry. What say?

Al

-- 
There's never enough time to do it right the first time.......
0
Al
9/11/2003 6:22:14 PM
In article <110920031306175218%no@spam.invalid>, Keeper of the Purple
Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <110920031400273928%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net>
> wrote:
> 
> > You ought to be able to reasonably answer this for yourself. Who --
> > other than the RIAA -- can say with certainty whether they will target
> > you? Do you have a history of being charged with crimes that you did
> > not commit?
> 
> No, but who can stand up to the RIAA?
> > 
> > I think that the RIAA's methods are a bit draconian, *but* the
> > America-is-already-dumbed-down crowd are trying to make this out to be
> > a complex issue. Theft isn't really very complex. Are you the copyright
> > holder? No? Then you may not distribute the work.
> 
> I'm not distributing anything!
> > 
> > I wonder if it's good for our society to have a generation of people
> > who think that stealing is OK as long as one steals something that is
> > easy to steal. Will this generation legalize car theft in the case of
> > unlocked cars, or cars with the keys left in them, or perhaps legalize
> > the theft of any item that is unattended by its owner?
> 
> Look, I already said:  All the MP3s I have, are ripped FROM CDs THAT I
> OWN AND THAT I BOUGHT LEGALLY.  Nobody else ever sees these MP3s.  I
> don't share them, nobody downloads them, I don't use P2P software, and
> I don't even make "mix" CDs.  All I do is listen to these MP3s when I'm
> sitting at my computer.  I'm not stealing anything.

Yes, RIAA will be after you. And now that you've admitted on a public
forum that you have not broken the law I'm sure they'll be after you
that much sooner =)

-- 
Christopher S. Moore
usenetspamtrap@mooregraphics.us
Email replies must begin with "Re: " in Subject line or be killed.
0
Chris
9/11/2003 6:24:45 PM
Davoud typed:

> I wonder if it's good for our society to have a generation of people
> who think that stealing is OK as long as one steals something that is
> easy to steal. 

as a kid, i used to tape songs right off the radio. i remember everyone
doing this. how many times did we make mixed tapes of individual songs
from various CDs, either for ourselves or to give to our (girl/boy) friends.
different generation, different tools, similar issue.
i don't think it'll ever end.
only difference is, there are way more lawyers involved now.

-- 
- Linux: the choice of a GNU generation
- free; as in free speech and free beer

remove '.eh' to email

0
johnny
9/11/2003 6:24:50 PM
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 18:06:16 GMT,
    Keeper of the Purple Twilight (no@spam.invalid) wrote:
> I'm not distributing anything!

Then why are you so concerned about copy violations.  You aren't
violating copyright, you aren't committing piracy, you have nothing
to worry about.

> Look, I already said:  All the MP3s I have, are ripped FROM CDs THAT I
> OWN AND THAT I BOUGHT LEGALLY.  Nobody else ever sees these MP3s.  I
> don't share them, nobody downloads them, I don't use P2P software, and
> I don't even make "mix" CDs.  All I do is listen to these MP3s when I'm
> sitting at my computer.  I'm not stealing anything.

Don't you think it is at least a little silly to post a question to
a newsgroup, when you _know_ the answer, and aren't prepared to accept
any others?

Beverly
-- 
Bev A. Kupf
"The lyfe so short, the craft so long to lerne" -- Chaucer
0
Bev
9/11/2003 6:34:17 PM
In article 
<cwnarf-14E82F.15260911092003@nntp-stjh-01-01.rogers.nf.net>,
 Pat Janes <cwnarf@arjpbzz.arg> wrote:

> In article <110920031231089587%no@spam.invalid>,
>  Keeper of the Purple Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > I don't have P2P software - never used it at all, never will.  I don't
> > download MP3's, and I don't *share* them - illegally or otherwise.  (I
> > do have MP3's on my computer and listen to them via iTunes, but these
> > are all ripped from CDs THAT I OWN and that I BOUGHT LEGALLY - and
> > again, these are not shared, nobody downloads them from my computer)
> > 
> > Am I still a target?  As I said, I have no sharing of any kind.  I
> > don't download either.
> 
> Nope, you would not be a target. Making copies of stuff you already own 
> is not copyright infringement.

One question I haven't seen answered is, if I have a legally purchased 
song on CD or Tape, is downloading an MP3 of that song legal?

-- 
Real Email-> neoluddite0comcast.net <- replace 0 with @
Blue & White G3/400MHz MacOS 9.1, Starmax 3000/200MHz MacOS 8.6
0
NeoLuddite
9/11/2003 6:53:19 PM
In article <110920031306175218%no@spam.invalid>,
 Keeper of the Purple Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <110920031400273928%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net>
> wrote:
> 
> > You ought to be able to reasonably answer this for yourself. Who --
> > other than the RIAA -- can say with certainty whether they will target
> > you? Do you have a history of being charged with crimes that you did
> > not commit?
> 
> No, but who can stand up to the RIAA?
> > 
> > I think that the RIAA's methods are a bit draconian, *but* the
> > America-is-already-dumbed-down crowd are trying to make this out to be
> > a complex issue. Theft isn't really very complex. Are you the copyright
> > holder? No? Then you may not distribute the work.
> 
> I'm not distributing anything!
> > 
> > I wonder if it's good for our society to have a generation of people
> > who think that stealing is OK as long as one steals something that is
> > easy to steal. Will this generation legalize car theft in the case of
> > unlocked cars, or cars with the keys left in them, or perhaps legalize
> > the theft of any item that is unattended by its owner?
> 
> Look, I already said:  All the MP3s I have, are ripped FROM CDs THAT I
> OWN AND THAT I BOUGHT LEGALLY.  Nobody else ever sees these MP3s.  I
> don't share them, nobody downloads them, I don't use P2P software, and
> I don't even make "mix" CDs.  All I do is listen to these MP3s when I'm
> sitting at my computer.  I'm not stealing anything.

Are you using "backup" copies of the CDs in your car?  That _might_ be a 
violation of copyright, since RIAA want you to buy another licensed copy 
to listen to there.

Anyway, with the way the subpoenas are granted, how would they know 
other than you're a Cox Communications customer and use a mac (from your 
postings).  Do you have thousands of CDs on your system?  There's 
nothing to stop them from going to COX and asking for your records 
thanks to the DMCA.  Then you can spend time and money defending 
yourself in court.

A kid had a document on his web site "harrypotter.doc" and got a letter 
from JKR's publishers only to respond that it was a bloody book report.

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
Especially when it comes to lawyers...

-- 
DeeDee, don't press that button!  DeeDee!  NO!  Dee...



0
Michael
9/11/2003 6:53:35 PM
Davoud  wrote:

>I wonder if it's good for our society to have a generation of people
>who think that stealing is OK as long as one steals something that is
>easy to steal. 

Xrist, can we not do this again quite so soon?


Jim
-- 

                Longhaired freaky people need not apply.
0
jimhill
9/11/2003 6:58:26 PM
Twilight wrote:

> Hardly a day goes by these days when we don't hear about new lawsuits
> filed by the RIAA.  I know they're targeting people who use P2P
> software (like Kazaa) and who download and/or share MP3's illegally. 
> But what if I DON'T do any of these things?  

If you're a target of the RIAA you can investigate this courtesy of the 
Electronic Frontier Foundation here:
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaasubpoenas/

And for those who do engage in file sharing:
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/howto-notgetsued.php

One is probably more likely to win a MegaJackpotlottery than be sued by 
the RIAA, but the press has been a great assist to the RIAA in putting 
the fear of god in the general public.  And of course, the RIAA has 
managed to turn up the heat on themselves by issuing a subpoena to a 12 
year old girl.

I don't condone theft of any kind, but neither do I support the absence 
of due process by the RIAA and the courts, and the additional threats to 
the First Amendment.

If you're really concerned, you can always beg mercy from the RIAA, sign 
an affadavit of guilt, and promise to destroy all your MP3s. Legally 
obtained or not, they would be delighted to oblige.

Frankly, I'd like to see these flash mobs show up en masse to the RIAA 
offices and do just that.  


-- 
-John Steinberg
email: not@thistime.invalid

....And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. 
                                 --Sir Bedevere
0
John
9/11/2003 7:00:46 PM
this is all bullshit.

The Music/Film/Television/entertainment biz
initialized "free-booting mass-user duplication authority" to everyone
and CONTINUE to pay the makers of *ALL BLANK MEDIA*
and *ALL MEDIA RECORDER/BURNERS* contract royalties
specifically JUST SO that "WE - the CONSUMER PUBLIC"
*WILL* buy the blanks & equipment precisely for the said purpose
for "mass personal duplications" to which the bastion and domain
that is the digital superhighway has the specific & unique purpose
to allow "mass contact with other computer lovers" to allow
the FREE EXCHANGE of "personal data" -- and THAT!!--is an MP3***
A particular type of *personal media* that IS NOT an industry standard.
And NOT something that any copyright has jurisdiction to bann.

So there is the full story - they PAY the elctronic industry to
SELL to you --COAX you to BUY!!-BUY!!---BUY!!..!!!!.!. and COPY.
Because they realized LONGGGGGGG ago that "allowed copying"
is more fruitful for the biz that ANYTHING --and MP3's don't change it.

Cheers  ; )
w
K

0
King
9/11/2003 7:03:18 PM
Bev A. Kupf <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:

> Don't you think it is at least a little silly to post a question to
> a newsgroup, when you _know_ the answer, and aren't prepared to accept
> any others?

And to newsgroups where it's really off-topic, as this isn't a Mac issue
per se.

-- 
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com> Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart
0
mike
9/11/2003 7:03:41 PM
Jim Hill <jimhill@swcp.com> wrote:

> Xrist, can we not do this again quite so soon?

Xrist?

-- 
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com> Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart
0
mike
9/11/2003 7:06:49 PM
NeoLuddite wrote:

> One question I haven't seen answered is, if I have a legally purchased 
> song on CD or Tape, is downloading an MP3 of that song legal?

I'm not a lawyer but the answer, per the RIAA, would likely be no. 

Why? Because they are using digital fingerprinting to press these cases 
and if they can prove you downloaded it, I think the fact that you own a 
purchased copy is irrelevant.  

Could be an interesting test case, but unless the ACLU finds your case 
intriguing, do you really want to pay legal bills to support your 
argument?  You've just theoretically tacitly acknowledged that you've 
downloaded MP3s -- IMO, that's actionable by the RIAA, simply because 
they cannot determine if you actually do own a legal original before 
issuing you a subpoena, and once issued, what's to stop a defendant from 
going out and purchasing legal CDs or tapes? 

Executive no-professional summary:

It's not legal.



-- 
-John Steinberg
email: not@thistime.invalid

....And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. 
                                 --Sir Bedevere
0
John
9/11/2003 7:11:40 PM
In article <1g14nay.pa91crithxnqN%mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid>, Mike
Rosenberg <mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid> wrote:

> Jim Hill <jimhill@swcp.com> wrote:
> 
> > Xrist, can we not do this again quite so soon?
> 
> Xrist?

You know.  The guy Xmas is named after.

-- 
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA                   <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

        When replying by e-mail, use plain text ONLY to make sure I read it.
        Due to spam and viruses, I filter all mail with HTML or attachments.
0
Jerry
9/11/2003 7:25:03 PM
In article <110920031324450581%usenetspamtrap@mooregraphics.us>, Chris
Moore <usenetspamtrap@mooregraphics.us> wrote:

> > Look, I already said:  All the MP3s I have, are ripped FROM CDs THAT I
> > OWN AND THAT I BOUGHT LEGALLY.  Nobody else ever sees these MP3s.  I
> > don't share them, nobody downloads them, I don't use P2P software, and
> > I don't even make "mix" CDs.  All I do is listen to these MP3s when I'm
> > sitting at my computer.  I'm not stealing anything.
> 
> Yes, RIAA will be after you.

Why?

-- 
"Boom.  Boom boom boom.  Boom boom.  BOOM.  Have a nice day."
- Susan Ivanova, B5
0
Keeper
9/11/2003 7:27:35 PM
In article <news-AB1CCD.11533511092003@news.tdl.com>, Michael Vilain
<vilain@spamcop.net> wrote:

> > Look, I already said:  All the MP3s I have, are ripped FROM CDs THAT I
> > OWN AND THAT I BOUGHT LEGALLY.  Nobody else ever sees these MP3s.  I
> > don't share them, nobody downloads them, I don't use P2P software, and
> > I don't even make "mix" CDs.  All I do is listen to these MP3s when I'm
> > sitting at my computer.  I'm not stealing anything.
> 
> Are you using "backup" copies of the CDs in your car? 

No.  Only the originals.

-- 
"Boom.  Boom boom boom.  Boom boom.  BOOM.  Have a nice day."
- Susan Ivanova, B5
0
Keeper
9/11/2003 7:29:37 PM
Michael Vilain  <vilain@spamcop.net> wrote:

> Are you using "backup" copies of the CDs in your car?  That _might_ be a 
> violation of copyright, since RIAA want you to buy another licensed copy 
> to listen to there.

Using a copy in your car is perfectly legal, no matter what the RIAA might
want.

-- 
Jeremy  |  jeremy@exit109.com
0
Jeremy
9/11/2003 7:39:54 PM
In article <no.spam-0B9B56.14221511092003@news.verizon.net>, Al
<no.spam@here.com> wrote:

> Maybe it's time for a boycott of the music industry. What say?

Okay, this is going way OT, but...

I wonder where we would be today if not for apps like Napster,
LimeWire, etc.  Whatever the advocates of these programs pretend, they
exist for one purpose and one purpose only -- to steal music.  Oh,
yeah, you can call it sharing...  and that mugger is just borrowing
your wallet!

I don't much care for the policies of the music industry, but they
don't exist in a vacuum.  Those policies might not exist if folks
weren't so eager to steal music.  It must be incredibly frustrating for
the recording industry, knowing that there's absolutely no reason --
other than ethics, which always seem to be in short supply -- for
people to buy music anymore.  So sure, let's boycott them right out of
existance, and then we'll see how happy we are with no more
commercial-quality music.

Instead, how about supporting the music industry through channels that
you approve.  For example, I highly approve of the iTunes store.  Apple
had to fight and make compromises to get the music industry to agree to
it, and now that it's there, let's not give the music industry reason
to regret the decision!  If they can be made to see that there are ways
to make money without treating all customers as criminals, maybe
they'll change their ways.  (A little, anyway -- I don't know that I
have *that* much faith in them.)

-- 
-Thomas

<http://www.bitjuggler.com/>
0
Thomas
9/11/2003 8:18:10 PM
In article <110920031400273928%star@sky.net>, Davoud  <star@sky.com> wrote:
>
>I think that the RIAA's methods are a bit draconian, *but* the
>America-is-already-dumbed-down crowd are trying to make this out to be
>a complex issue. Theft isn't really very complex. 

Theft is simple.  Copyright infringement is complex.  They aren't the
same thing.

>Are you the copyright
>holder? No? Then you may not distribute the work.

Nor reproduce it.  Except that sometimes you can reproduce it
legally.  And you can distribute copies which you legally purchased.
And performing the work in public is a no-no too, but maybe singing
"Happy Birthday" at your kid's birthday party isn't; depends on where
you are and how many guests are present.
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                            mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."  But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of 
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
0
russotto
9/11/2003 8:35:12 PM
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:18:10 GMT, Thomas Reed <thomasareed@dont.spam.me> wrote:
> 
> I wonder where we would be today if not for apps like Napster,
> LimeWire, etc.  Whatever the advocates of these programs pretend, they
> exist for one purpose and one purpose only -- to steal music.  

That's a short-sighted and inaccurate statement.  I have a friend who is
an independant musician, who has chosen to encourage people to use
p2p networking to get her music.  Given that she is a counterexample
to your absolute statement, it is therefore false.  Further, if I
would choose to share, oh, I don't know, digital images of something
or other, I could do so for anyone to get.  In that case, it's neither
stealing *nor* music, so your absolute statement is wrong on both
counts.

> Instead, how about supporting the music industry through channels that
> you approve.  For example, I highly approve of the iTunes store.  Apple
> had to fight and make compromises to get the music industry to agree to
> it, and now that it's there, let's not give the music industry reason
> to regret the decision! 

What does the p2p debate have to do with the music industry regretting
the iTunes decision?  Doesn't follow.

>  If they can be made to see that there are ways
> to make money without treating all customers as criminals, maybe
> they'll change their ways.  (A little, anyway -- I don't know that I
> have *that* much faith in them.)
 
Well, Apple just sold the 10,000,000th song a few days ago, so the music
industry should be seeing real gains from working *with* technology
rather than suing 12 year old little girls.  Of course, knowing their
tactics, they'll just say "See, this shows how much we're losing from
P2P" rather than something like acknowledging that iTunes is helping
them.

While it's true that they need music to find talent, the realities are
that demand is falling.  They need to figure out how to work with the
technology.

Dave Hinz

0
Dave
9/11/2003 8:37:02 PM
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 14:53:19 -0400, NeoLuddite <see_signature_for_address@invalid.com> wrote:
> 
> One question I haven't seen answered is, if I have a legally purchased 
> song on CD or Tape, is downloading an MP3 of that song legal?

In that case, as I see it, you're using the convenience of someone else
having "ripped" it to .mp3, to listen to something you already own.  If
you have the CD, I can't see how having an .mp3 of it can be a problem,
even if the .mp3 wasn't made on your own computer.

Dave Hinz

0
Dave
9/11/2003 8:39:52 PM
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 18:24:45 GMT, Chris Moore <usenetspamtrap@mooregraphics.us> wrote:
> In article <110920031306175218%no@spam.invalid>, Keeper of the Purple
> Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Look, I already said:  All the MP3s I have, are ripped FROM CDs THAT I
>> OWN AND THAT I BOUGHT LEGALLY.  Nobody else ever sees these MP3s.  I
>> don't share them, nobody downloads them, I don't use P2P software, and
>> I don't even make "mix" CDs.  All I do is listen to these MP3s when I'm
>> sitting at my computer.  I'm not stealing anything.
> 
> Yes, RIAA will be after you. And now that you've admitted on a public
> forum that you have not broken the law I'm sure they'll be after you
> that much sooner =)

Look.  The question is apparently serious, "Purple" is trying to find out.

The real answer is there is no judge or jury in the world that would
find you guilty of anything, for converting your cds to .mp3 for
listening convenience.

0
Dave
9/11/2003 8:42:53 PM
in article cwnarf-14E82F.15260911092003@nntp-stjh-01-01.rogers.nf.net, Pat
Janes at cwnarf@arjpbzz.arg wrote on 9/11/03 11:56 AM:

> In article <110920031231089587%no@spam.invalid>,
> Keeper of the Purple Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> I don't have P2P software - never used it at all, never will.  I don't
>> download MP3's, and I don't *share* them - illegally or otherwise.  (I
>> do have MP3's on my computer and listen to them via iTunes, but these
>> are all ripped from CDs THAT I OWN and that I BOUGHT LEGALLY - and
>> again, these are not shared, nobody downloads them from my computer)
>> 
>> Am I still a target?  As I said, I have no sharing of any kind.  I
>> don't download either.
> 
> Nope, you would not be a target. Making copies of stuff you already own
> is not copyright infringement.
Not to hear some from RIAA talk about it.  Some of their talking heads seem
to think that you are only allowed 1 copy of a song (say, on vinyl) and if
you want it in a digital form you have to buy a CD or buy them MP3.

We'll see what the courts think

0
MW
9/11/2003 8:45:34 PM
Al wrote:

> Maybe it's time for a boycott of the music industry. What say?
> 
> Al

Maybe if you're fined for shoplifting from stores, you should boycott
those stores? 

Dumb!

Tony
0
Tony
9/11/2003 8:55:37 PM
In article <3F60E146.4492E89A@hotmail.com>,
 "Tony W." <tony_fw@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Maybe it's time for a boycott of the music industry. What say?
> > 
> > Al
> 
> Maybe if you're fined for shoplifting from stores, you should boycott
> those stores? 

Wrong analogy.  Maybe if you are riffling through books in a bookstore, 
trying to decide whether you want to buy them, and are accused of 
shoplifting for doing so, you should boycott those stores...

-- 
David Eppstein                      http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
Univ. of California, Irvine, School of Information & Computer Science
0
David
9/11/2003 9:14:31 PM
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 19:11:40 UTC, John Steinberg <seesig@bottom.invalid>
wrote:

> > One question I haven't seen answered is, if I have a legally purchased 
> > song on CD or Tape, is downloading an MP3 of that song legal?
>  
> I'm not a lawyer but the answer, per the RIAA, would likely be no. 
>  
> Why? Because they are using digital fingerprinting to press these cases 
> and if they can prove you downloaded it, I think the fact that you own a 
> purchased copy is irrelevant.  
> 

Ummm, no. Owning an original version is entirely relevant. 




-- 
Please reply to: v1r0b1k@despammed.com

0
v1r0b1k
9/11/2003 9:23:59 PM
In article <BB863B0E.279B%castlema@yahoo.com>,
 MW Castleman <castlema@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> Am I still a target?  As I said, I have no sharing of any kind.  I
> >> don't download either.
> > 
> > Nope, you would not be a target. Making copies of stuff you already own
> > is not copyright infringement.
> Not to hear some from RIAA talk about it.  Some of their talking heads seem
> to think that you are only allowed 1 copy of a song (say, on vinyl) and if
> you want it in a digital form you have to buy a CD or buy them MP3.
> 
> We'll see what the courts think

RIAA representatives have repeatedly, for far longer than MP3 has 
existed, asserted that as far as they're concerned the purchased license 
to content covers not the content but the particular rendition of 
content-on-media. By their way of thinking, despite any concept of fair 
use, you are not allowed even to make a tape of a CD you have for use in 
your car.

I'm very much looking forward to finally having that particular fetish 
tested and then smacked around with a 2 by 4.

G
0
Gregory
9/11/2003 9:26:38 PM
> in article cwnarf-14E82F.15260911092003@nntp-stjh-01-01.rogers.nf.net, Pat
> Janes at cwnarf@arjpbzz.arg wrote on 9/11/03 11:56 AM:
> > 
> > Nope, you would not be a target. Making copies of stuff you already own
> > is not copyright infringement.

In article <BB863B0E.279B%castlema@yahoo.com>,
 MW Castleman <castlema@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Not to hear some from RIAA talk about it.  Some of their talking heads seem
> to think that you are only allowed 1 copy of a song (say, on vinyl) and if
> you want it in a digital form you have to buy a CD or buy them MP3.
> 
> We'll see what the courts think

Ok, I'm not in the USA. Where I live, making a copy of a CD, either 
converting the track to MP3 or making a CD for the car, is not copyright 
infringement as long as you're not distributing the copies far and wide 
via the net. The Copyright Board of Canada, a sort of commission with 
the same legal standing as a superior court, has ruled that such use is 
not copyright infringement. In return for such liberal copyright laws, 
people in Canada pay a levy on every piece of blank media. The money 
collected is then distributed to the copyright holders based on a 
formula determined by the Copyright Board.

In the USA there are no clear legal precedents regarding "fair use" WRT 
making a MP3 or or other digital copy of music from a CD for your own 
use but it's highly unlikely that the RIAA is going to come after you. 
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has some good info about this.

http://www.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php
0
Pat
9/11/2003 9:42:28 PM
In article <YmSPgjx6zsY1-pn2-fWwLCntPkx6C@localhost>,
 v1r0b1k@despammed.com wrote:

> Ummm, no. Owning an original version is entirely relevant. 

And the RIAA knows that a random downloader has an original version how?



-- 
-John Steinberg
email: not@thistime.invalid

....And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. 
                                 --Sir Bedevere
0
John
9/11/2003 9:47:29 PM
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, John Steinberg wrote:

> In article <YmSPgjx6zsY1-pn2-fWwLCntPkx6C@localhost>,
>  v1r0b1k@despammed.com wrote:
>
> > Ummm, no. Owning an original version is entirely relevant.
>
> And the RIAA knows that a random downloader has an original version how?

That's for them to work out. If you are accusing someone, it's up to you
to get your facts straight.

Fred

0
Frederick
9/11/2003 10:03:19 PM
Frederick Cheung wrote:

> That's for them to work out. If you are accusing someone, it's up to you
> to get your facts straight.

I'm afraid you may have a very tenuous grasp on how the RIAA is 
functioning here. 




-- 
-John Steinberg
email: not@thistime.invalid

....And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. 
                                 --Sir Bedevere
0
John
9/11/2003 10:48:07 PM
In article <bjqmde$kjh9a$2@ID-134476.news.uni-berlin.de>, Dave Hinz
<davehinz@spamcop.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:18:10 GMT, Thomas Reed <thomasareed@dont.spam.me>
> wrote:
> > 
> > I wonder where we would be today if not for apps like Napster,
> > LimeWire, etc.  Whatever the advocates of these programs pretend, they
> > exist for one purpose and one purpose only -- to steal music.  
> 
> That's a short-sighted and inaccurate statement.  I have a friend who is
> an independant musician, who has chosen to encourage people to use
> p2p networking to get her music. [...]

Mm-hmm.  I'm sure there are legit users like that out there.  What
proportion do you suppose they represent?  And, if Napster, LimeWire
and the like are meant to do good instead of evil, why isn't there a
way to limit sharing of illegal content?

> > Instead, how about supporting the music industry through channels that
> > you approve.  For example, I highly approve of the iTunes store.  Apple
> > had to fight and make compromises to get the music industry to agree to
> > it, and now that it's there, let's not give the music industry reason
> > to regret the decision! 
> 
> What does the p2p debate have to do with the music industry regretting
> the iTunes decision?  Doesn't follow.

The music industry has always fought *any* kind of electronic
distribution of their content.  With iTunes, they are actively
distributing content electronically.  If iTunes succeeds, they might
decide to find other approaches to controlling piracy other than
attempts to prohibit electronic content outright.

> Well, Apple just sold the 10,000,000th song a few days ago, so the music
> industry should be seeing real gains from working *with* technology

I certainly hope so.  Of course, there's an element of "survival of the
fittest" working here.  The companies who cooperate with Apple and
other electronic distributors will make money in outlets they wouldn't
otherwise.  The ones who don't cooperate won't make any more money in
the stores, they'll just miss out on an opportunity and be less
profitable.

> While it's true that they need music to find talent, the realities are
> that demand is falling.

Exactly!  And why is demand falling?  It's not because people aren't
listening to music anymore.  It's because people are easily able to
steal whatever music they like over the internet.

-- 
-Thomas

<http://www.bitjuggler.com/>
0
Thomas
9/11/2003 10:51:15 PM
In article <110920031306175218%no@spam.invalid>, no@spam.invalid says...

> Look, I already said:  All the MP3s I have, are ripped FROM CDs THAT I
> OWN AND THAT I BOUGHT LEGALLY.  Nobody else ever sees these MP3s.  I
> don't share them, nobody downloads them, I don't use P2P software, and
> I don't even make "mix" CDs.  All I do is listen to these MP3s when I'm
> sitting at my computer.  I'm not stealing anything.

Although the newer copyright laws seem to be getting weird about it,
this is what has always been known in copyright law as "fair use".
Fair use doctrine allows copying for personal use, as long as you
copy from a legitimate source (i.e., the source was properly
purchased or licensed), and do not distribute.  Taping from radio
or television broadcast is fine, as long as the source material
was licensed for broadcast (which consumer audio and video products
are not, and haven't been for decades).  Fair use also covers
a number of issues related to limited distribution; for instance,
you can quote excerpts from a copyrighted article for purposes
of review (which the courts have held does legitimately include
satire and ridicule of the copied material).  

But the kind of mass copying and unlimited redistribution of
copyrighted material that file-sharing facilitates never has
been legal.

The new copyright laws are working hard to eliminate fair use,
and we won't really know where things are settling out until
these issues have been worked through the courts.  It's going
to take years.

As long as you're copying your own CDs and not letting anyone
else make copies of your CDs, I don't think you'll have a 
problem.

I do think that the RIAA, as well as the media companies,
are going to run into stiff resistance from consumers if
they try to clamp down on the number of times you can listen.
I don't like "pay per view" or "pay per listen", and I
certainly won't buy any of the new self-destructing DVDs.
When consumers balk, the media companies will have to back
off.

Diane
0
Diane
9/11/2003 11:42:51 PM
In article <seesig-1498EC.15114311092003@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
 John Steinberg <seesig@bottom.invalid> wrote:

> Why? Because they are using digital fingerprinting to press these cases 
> and if they can prove you downloaded it, I think the fact that you own a 
> purchased copy is irrelevant. 

What sort of digital fingerprining are you talking about? If you've got an 
mp3 sitting on your hard drive, how in the hell could they tell if was 
illegally obtained or not?

To my knowledge, they haven't gone after downloaders at all. They go after 
the uploaders. They go onto Kazaa and look for people who are making a 
thousand or more titles available for downloading. They get the IP address 
of said uploader and go screaming to the ISP. That's my understanding of  
what's happening right now.
0
The
9/11/2003 11:59:48 PM
NeoLuddite <see_signature_for_address@invalid.com> writes:
> 
> One question I haven't seen answered is, if I have a legally
> purchased song on CD or Tape, is downloading an MP3 of that song
> legal?

The law is rather ambiguous here.  But the RIAA will sue you anyway.
Have fun defending yourself.

-- David
0
shamino
9/12/2003 12:06:09 AM
The World Wide Wade <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> writes:
> 
> What sort of digital fingerprining are you talking about? If you've
> got an mp3 sitting on your hard drive, how in the hell could they
> tell if was illegally obtained or not?

They have downloaded lots of MP3 files from the file sharing networks.
When they decide to confiscate your computer as evidence, they can
compare the files on your drive against the ones they downloaded.  If
they're exact matches, they can accuse you of downloading it.

If the same track is ripped on two different occasions using different
software (and therefore different encoding algorithms), different
compression parameters and different ID3 tags, the resulting files
won't be identical.

I don't think anyone's yet run a test to determine if two different
discs ripped on two different computers using identical software will
yield identical files.  (e.g. if we both purchase the same CD and rip
the songs using the same version of iTunes with the same parameters.)

> To my knowledge, they haven't gone after downloaders at all. They go
> after the uploaders. They go onto Kazaa and look for people who are
> making a thousand or more titles available for downloading. They get
> the IP address of said uploader and go screaming to the ISP. That's
> my understanding of what's happening right now.

So far, this is how they pick their targets.  But once they have your
computer impounded as evidence, they run through the music collection
to try and determine how many songs have been downloaded, in order to
increase the size of the suit.

It's also possible that they may read server logs from confiscated
systems to get the addresses of those who downloaded files.  (I don't
know which sharing programs keep logs, but it wouldn't surprise me if
there are some that do.)

I suppose they could also run their own P2P servers and take down the
address of anyone who downloads from them, but if they tried that,
you'd have a good case to throw out the suit on grounds of entrapment.
(After all, if the copyright holder makes a file available, it can't
be piracy.)

But IANAL, so don't do anything stupid based on what you see here.

-- David
0
shamino
9/12/2003 12:14:47 AM
Pat Janes <cwnarf@arjpbzz.arg> writes:
> 
> In the USA there are no clear legal precedents regarding "fair use"
> WRT making a MP3 or or other digital copy of music from a CD for
> your own use but it's highly unlikely that the RIAA is going to come
> after you.

Nobody will come after you if you don't make the copied files
available.  How could they?  They don't (yet) have the right to smash
in doors and confiscate computers without at least some kind of
suspicion.

-- David
0
shamino
9/12/2003 12:16:38 AM
"Michael Vilain <vilain@spamcop.net>" writes:
> 
> Are you using "backup" copies of the CDs in your car?  That _might_
> be a violation of copyright, since RIAA want you to buy another
> licensed copy to listen to there.

???

If that was they case, then they would have sued Apple and not just
complained to the press.

Have you forgotten the "rip, mix, burn" commercials?

-- David
0
shamino
9/12/2003 12:19:33 AM
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 22:48:07 UTC, John Steinberg <seesig@bottom.invalid>
wrote:

> > That's for them to work out. If you are accusing someone, it's up to you
> > to get your facts straight.
>  
> I'm afraid you may have a very tenuous grasp on how the RIAA is 
> functioning here. 
> 

Proof of innocence is still a valid defense.


-- 
Please reply to: v1r0b1k@despammed.com

0
v1r0b1k
9/12/2003 12:22:15 AM
Jeremy <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:

> Michael Vilain  <vilain@spamcop.net> wrote:
> 
> > Are you using "backup" copies of the CDs in your car?  That _might_ be a
> > violation of copyright, since RIAA want you to buy another licensed copy
> > to listen to there.
> 
> Using a copy in your car is perfectly legal, no matter what the RIAA might
> want.

Then, why all these copy protection systems, that prevent home users
from making easily those "perfectly legal" digital copies for their own
use, BUT *don't* prevent criminals from producing illegal material for
commercial black market distribution with their pro equipment?

I hear blank CDRs are getting more expensive right these days. Perhaps
RIAA (& others around the world) are heading towards to a CD-free world,
where music is distributed only through net, or otherwise as data only.

This will reduce illegal CD-quality copying substantially as all new
computers and OSs are preconfigured for allowing only "so many" digital
copies of any purchased audio product. Apple's iTunes Music Store always
is based on this. When this evolves little further, you don't have to
ask anymore...

Well, back to analogous home copying, I guess.

-- 
Esa     Sept. 11th: "Down with the terrorists! They are probably just 
        a bloody bunch of losers, afraid to face the consequences of
        their own sexuality!"     - Unknown free thinker -
0
esa
9/12/2003 12:25:48 AM
The World Wide Wade wrote:

> What sort of digital fingerprining are you talking about? If you've got an 
> mp3 sitting on your hard drive, how in the hell could they tell if was 
> illegally obtained or not?

I think David C. has covered this question perfectly.

> To my knowledge, they haven't gone after downloaders at all. They go after 
> the uploaders. They go onto Kazaa and look for people who are making a 
> thousand or more titles available for downloading. They get the IP address 
> of said uploader and go screaming to the ISP. That's my understanding of  
> what's happening right now.

Right, they're after those who make the files available for others and 
their current threshold appears to be >999 units, but with the freedom 
granted them by the courts, there's no saying they won't eventually also 
target downloaders only.  Pretty easy to monitor what's going on in the 
P2P networks, and I suspect their final objective is to shut them down 
completely.  Witness their recent added tack of bringing kiddie porn 
into the equation.  The more egregious the violations the more they hope 
to garner added public and political support.  Kiddie porn is about as 
disgusting a thing as there is in the digital universe, so they may get 
some added traction by highlighting this particular perversion.

Personally, I'm quite curious as to if/when they start to address the 
massive numbers of Usenet sharers.  Has anyone read even a word about 
the RIAA and Usenet?

-- 
-John Steinberg
email: not@thistime.invalid

....And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. 
                                 --Sir Bedevere
0
John
9/12/2003 12:29:39 AM
v1r0b1k wrote:

> Proof of innocence is still a valid defense.

The RIAA is really not interested in taking these matters to court, and 
frankly, neither should the vast majority of computer users who are 
sharing MP3s.  They want you to admit your guilt, pay a fine, and 
settle. Then they want to publicize this settlement as widely as 
possible.

Your pockets would have to be very deep and your innocence unassailable 
in order to win a fight with them.  And even if you're a pure as the 
driven snow, in court you always run the risk of losing.  These are 
civil matters and the deck is stacked against you, brother, but hey, if 
a subpoena comes a calling and you're sincerely an innocent victim, 
then by all means fight the good fight. Just don't say I didn't warn 
ya.

The NYT reported earlier this week about an RIAA case of a grandfather 
whose grand kids were sharing MP3s while visiting him on the weekends. 
Think he's an innocent victim?  Think again, in the eyes of the RIAA, 
he's as guilty as OJ.  




-- 
-John Steinberg
email: not@thistime.invalid

....And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. 
                                 --Sir Bedevere
0
John
9/12/2003 12:43:47 AM
esa.toivonen@pp3.inet.fi (Esa Toivonen) writes:
> 
> Then, why all these copy protection systems, that prevent home users
> from making easily those "perfectly legal" digital copies for their
> own use, BUT *don't* prevent criminals from producing illegal
> material for commercial black market distribution with their pro
> equipment?

The fact that it's leagal doesn't mean they approve, and it doesn't
mean they have to make it easier for you.

> I hear blank CDRs are getting more expensive right these
> days.

Really?  Interesting.  The discs I'm buying now are the same price as
the ones I bought last year.

But general purpose CDs (for use in computers, not in audio decks)
aren't tariffed by the RIAA.  Maybe the tariff rate went up
recently.  Since I don't have a consumer-audio CD-R deck, I don't
have to buy audio CD-R media.

-- David
0
shamino
9/12/2003 12:56:29 AM
John Steinberg <seesig@bottom.invalid> writes:
> 
> Witness their recent added tack of bringing kiddie porn into the
> equation. ...

Of course, the DMCA won't let them sue over kiddie porn, unless they
want to claim copyright ownership over it. :-)

-- David
0
shamino
9/12/2003 12:59:08 AM
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:22:15 GMT, v1r0b1k@despammed.com <v1r0b1k@despammed.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 22:48:07 UTC, John Steinberg <seesig@bottom.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>> I'm afraid you may have a very tenuous grasp on how the RIAA is 
>> functioning here. 
> 
> Proof of innocence is still a valid defense.

In the USA, it's "innocent until proven guilty" for criminal issues,
and "A preponderance of evidence" for civil issues.  That's why OJ was
found guilty in civil court, but not "guilty enough" in criminal.

Proving one's innocence is a leftover from the days of the Spanish
Inquisition (which, of course, noooooobody expects!).  What doesn't help
is when people cave to their strong-arm tactics, because it confuses the
public as to the real issues.

I'll stand by my statement - if they want to come after me because I
have an itunes directory full of mp3's from cds that I bought, own, and
have possession of, they can (insert rude comment here).

Dave Hinz



0
Dave
9/12/2003 1:32:49 AM
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 22:51:15 GMT, Thomas Reed <thomasareed@dont.spam.me> wrote:
> In article <bjqmde$kjh9a$2@ID-134476.news.uni-berlin.de>, Dave Hinz
><davehinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:18:10 GMT, Thomas Reed <thomasareed@dont.spam.me>
>> wrote:
>> > 
>> > Whatever the advocates of these programs pretend, they
>> > exist for one purpose and one purpose only -- to steal music.  
>> 
>> I have a friend who is
>> an independant musician, who has chosen to encourage people to use
>> p2p networking to get her music. [...]
> 
> Mm-hmm.  I'm sure there are legit users like that out there.  What
> proportion do you suppose they represent?  

Mm-hmm, indeed.  You've gone from "only" to "Yeah, but what is the
ratio".

> And, if Napster, LimeWire
> and the like are meant to do good instead of evil, why isn't there a
> way to limit sharing of illegal content?

OK, how do *you* propose to identify "illegal content"?  Show your
work.  It's not the tool that is the problem, it's the people who
choose to use it illegally.  I'm really, really, really trying to avoid
the G*n c*ntrol analogy here, but it is very apt.
 
>> While it's true that they need music to find talent, the realities are
>> that demand is falling.
> 
> Exactly!  And why is demand falling?  It's not because people aren't
> listening to music anymore.  It's because people are easily able to
> steal whatever music they like over the internet.

Or, because they refuse to buy from an industry who courageously sues
12 year old little girls.   I'll just listen to the radio and my
extensive (legal) cd and mp3 collection until they stop collectively
being a bunch of bullies.

Dave Hinz

0
Dave
9/12/2003 1:36:21 AM
David C. <shamino@techie.com> wrote:

> esa.toivonen@pp3.inet.fi (Esa Toivonen) writes:
> > 
> > Then, why all these copy protection systems, that prevent home users
> > from making easily those "perfectly legal" digital copies for their
> > own use, BUT *don't* prevent criminals from producing illegal
> > material for commercial black market distribution with their pro
> > equipment?
> 
> The fact that it's leagal doesn't mean they approve, and it doesn't
> mean they have to make it easier for you.

Why bother using protection, if they don't have any special target? 

Obviously, the protection doesn't prevent analogous copying, the result
of which no average user distinquish from a digital copy, so the
protection doens't have any effect on potential illegal distribution.
Prolly, already now many p2p audio files are analoguous: differing song
lengths within the same titles.

> > I hear blank CDRs are getting more expensive right these
> > days.
> 
> Really?  Interesting.  The discs I'm buying now are the same price as
> the ones I bought last year.

Sorry, actually this was about blank cdrws. A main dealer had ordered
more blanks from their wholesale, and didn't get any within a usuall
time fork. THEY assumed, it might be because of rising prices.

> But general purpose CDs (for use in computers, not in audio decks)
> aren't tariffed by the RIAA.  Maybe the tariff rate went up
> recently.  Since I don't have a consumer-audio CD-R deck, I don't
> have to buy audio CD-R media.

IF  record industry in whole wanted to get rid of the cds, and
DVD-format would make it's big and wide breakthrough at the same time, I
can imagine the lessening use of the blank cds made them in short time
much more expensive. DVD-recorders on the other hand are probably
already from the beginning supportive for new copy protection methods
(DRFM, or something...), which actually makes certain that making more
digital copies of new audio products than copyright holders allow you to
(in code included in the product), might turn out to be quite hard job.

I could not copy my nice new Jewel album digitally for my completely
legal own use (according to the law of my country), but luckily enough
my ears can't distinquish analogfuous copies from the digital.

-- 
Esa
0
esa
9/12/2003 1:57:46 AM
John Steinberg wrote:

> 
> The NYT reported earlier this week about an RIAA case of a grandfather 
> whose grand kids were sharing MP3s while visiting him on the weekends. 
> Think he's an innocent victim?  Think again, in the eyes of the RIAA, 
> he's as guilty as OJ.  

that reminds me of the guy found in an airport waiting lounge puffing 
away happily on a pipeful of a "delightful herb mixture" his grandson 
had given him. don't recall whether he ended up doing time.

-- rob

0
Robert
9/12/2003 3:01:34 AM
David C. wrote:

> Nobody will come after you if you don't make the copied files
> available.  How could they?  They don't (yet) have the right to smash
> in doors and confiscate computers without at least some kind of
> suspicion.

some reading the USA PATRIOT act would disagree. at the very least these 
are interesting times.

i guess you're correct, on second thought. they merely have the right to 
enter your premises without your knowledge or consent, examine whatever 
they like, leave behind a keystroke-logger or IP back door on your 
'puters and never ever need to tell you about it.

-- rob

0
Robert
9/12/2003 3:10:26 AM
In article
<cwnarf-7EE4D0.19122811092003@nntp-stjh-01-01.rogers.nf.net>, Pat Janes
<cwnarf@arjpbzz.arg> wrote:


> Ok, I'm not in the USA. Where I live, making a copy of a CD, either 
> converting the track to MP3 or making a CD for the car, is not copyright 
> infringement as long as you're not distributing the copies far and wide 
> via the net. The Copyright Board of Canada, a sort of commission with 
> the same legal standing as a superior court, has ruled that such use is 
> not copyright infringement. In return for such liberal copyright laws, 
> people in Canada pay a levy on every piece of blank media. The money 
> collected is then distributed to the copyright holders based on a 
> formula determined by the Copyright Board.

Also, I was finally able to connect to the RIAA's web site (after many
attempts to connect, failed), and this is what they say:

"If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on
your computer or portable music player, that's great.  It's your music
and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the
jogging trail. But the fact that technology exists to enable unlimited
Internet distribution of music copies doesn't make it right. "

I guess that pretty much settles it.  The mere fact of listening to
MP3's that you've ripped from your own CDs, via iTunes, is legal.  So
is putting those MP3's on an iPod.   It's only sharing them over the
'net that's illegal.

-- 
�There are no mistakes in love.�
- Patty Smyth
0
Keeper
9/12/2003 5:05:50 AM
In article <COa8b.7729$ej1.6902@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>,
 Robert A Moeser <ram@tiac.net> wrote:

> i guess you're correct, on second thought. they merely have the right to 
> enter your premises without your knowledge or consent, examine whatever 
> they like, leave behind a keystroke-logger or IP back door on your 
> 'puters and never ever need to tell you about it.

The RIAA can't.  (Well, unless they can convince their friends in the 
federal government to let them.)

 - geoff

-- 
Visit http://PostingUp.net
All college basketball, no Andy Katz
0
Geoffrey
9/12/2003 11:49:24 AM
In article <bjqmod$kjh9a$4@ID-134476.news.uni-berlin.de>, Dave Hinz
<davehinz@spamcop.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 18:24:45 GMT, Chris Moore
> <usenetspamtrap@mooregraphics.us> wrote:
> > In article <110920031306175218%no@spam.invalid>, Keeper of the Purple
> > Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >> Look, I already said:  All the MP3s I have, are ripped FROM CDs THAT I
> >> OWN AND THAT I BOUGHT LEGALLY.  Nobody else ever sees these MP3s.  I
> >> don't share them, nobody downloads them, I don't use P2P software, and
> >> I don't even make "mix" CDs.  All I do is listen to these MP3s when I'm
> >> sitting at my computer.  I'm not stealing anything.
> > 
> > Yes, RIAA will be after you. And now that you've admitted on a public
> > forum that you have not broken the law I'm sure they'll be after you
> > that much sooner =)
> 
> Look.  The question is apparently serious, "Purple" is trying to find out.

Agreed. And my reply was apparently meant to be humorous. You can tell
by the little emotioncon at the end of the sentance.

-- 
Christopher S. Moore
usenetspamtrap@mooregraphics.us
Email replies must begin with "Re: " in Subject line or be killed.
0
Chris
9/12/2003 12:33:21 PM
In article <1g15khf.1b5csi9ekiafeN%esa.toivonen@pp3.inet.fi>,
 esa.toivonen@pp3.inet.fi (Esa Toivonen) wrote:

> Then, why all these copy protection systems, that prevent home users
> from making easily those "perfectly legal" digital copies for their own
> use, BUT *don't* prevent criminals from producing illegal material for
> commercial black market distribution with their pro equipment?

Because the RIAA is a bunch of LARGE assholes? Just a WAG.

-- 
Enough <enough@idontcare.com>
0
Enough
9/12/2003 12:46:42 PM
In article <bjr7ul$mbi5q$3@ID-134476.news.uni-berlin.de>, Dave Hinz
<davehinz@spamcop.net> wrote:

> > Mm-hmm.  I'm sure there are legit users like that out there.  What
> > proportion do you suppose they represent?  
> 
> Mm-hmm, indeed.  You've gone from "only" to "Yeah, but what is the
> ratio".

At a certain point, the difference between "only" and "yeah, but what
is the ratio" becomes negligible.  If I say "There are 1000 people that
stole music in the last minute", and you say "No there aren't, there
are only 999!", then what's the statistical difference?   (That figure
was pulled out of my a**, BTW, so don't assume I'm quoting a real
statistic.)

> > And, if Napster, LimeWire
> > and the like are meant to do good instead of evil, why isn't there a
> > way to limit sharing of illegal content?
> 
> OK, how do *you* propose to identify "illegal content"?

Commercial music that you don't own and whose owner does not allow free
distribution of.  Pretty easily defined.

> It's not the tool that is the problem, it's the people who
> choose to use it illegally.

Yup, very true -- sort of the "guns don't kill people, people with guns
kill people" approach.  Of course, guns are controlled in the US, and
outright illegal in some countries.  How about a set of lock picks? 
Sure, they'd come in handy if I lock myself out of the house, but then
why can't I buy them down at the hardware store?  There are precedents
for controlling access to tools that are often misused for criminal
purposes.

> > Exactly!  And why is demand falling?  It's not because people aren't
> > listening to music anymore.  It's because people are easily able to
> > steal whatever music they like over the internet.
> 
> Or, because they refuse to buy from an industry who courageously sues
> 12 year old little girls.

Who are these 12 year old girls you're talking about?  And if they're
doing something like illegally distributing music, why shouldn't they
be sued?  (Or, their parents, anyway.)  If my daughter were to
shoplift, I wouldn't think it odd that she got in trouble for it.

> I'll just listen to the radio and my
> extensive (legal) cd and mp3 collection until they stop collectively
> being a bunch of bullies.

Heh, who's the bully here?  Seems to me that the public is actively
taunting the music industry by distributing commercial music freely on
the internet.  The taunts are only made worse by the fact that the
legal system has not yet managed to do anything about these illegal
activities.  Do you expect them to just stand there and take the
punches without defending themselves?

-- 
-Thomas

<http://www.bitjuggler.com/>
0
Thomas
9/12/2003 1:40:48 PM
Thomas Reed <thomasareed@dont.spam.me> wrote:

>I wonder where we would be today if not for apps like Napster,
>LimeWire, etc.  Whatever the advocates of these programs pretend, they
>exist for one purpose and one purpose only -- to steal music.  Oh,
>yeah, you can call it sharing...  and that mugger is just borrowing
>your wallet!

I never cared much for mind-reading. There are legitimate uses for
file-sharing beyond stealing music.

By the same token, maybe the RIAA should sue Roxio to halt the sale of
Toast. After all, it's a tool that allows music to be stolen. Who
among us doesn't know someone who's burned a copy of a music CD for a
friend or relative?

Just because some product has possible nefarious uses is not a good
reason to ban the product. It's like trying to ban guns because they
are used in the commission of crimes, without seeing other legitimate
uses such as self-defense, hunting and shooting sports.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
H.B. Elkins -- Beattyville, KY
http://www.millenniumhwy.net hbelkins(at)mis.net

"There's no doubt he's the best race driver in the world."
--Dale Jarrett, on the late Dale Earnhardt

Go Big Blue (Kentucky Wildcats)! Go #15 (Michael Waltrip, NAPA Chevy)!

Vote Ernie Fletcher for Governor of Kentucky! http://www.fletcher2003.com

To reply, just remove the restrictorplates...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
0
hbelkins
9/12/2003 2:11:05 PM
Thomas Reed <thomasareed@dont.spam.me> wrote:

>Exactly!  And why is demand falling?  It's not because people aren't
>listening to music anymore.  It's because people are easily able to
>steal whatever music they like over the internet.

Actually, I'd prefer to think it's because most of the music that's
being released today just plain sucks.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
H.B. Elkins -- Beattyville, KY
http://www.millenniumhwy.net hbelkins(at)mis.net

"There's no doubt he's the best race driver in the world."
--Dale Jarrett, on the late Dale Earnhardt

Go Big Blue (Kentucky Wildcats)! Go #15 (Michael Waltrip, NAPA Chevy)!

Vote Ernie Fletcher for Governor of Kentucky! http://www.fletcher2003.com

To reply, just remove the restrictorplates...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
0
hbelkins
9/12/2003 2:13:12 PM
MW Castleman <castlema@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Not to hear some from RIAA talk about it.  Some of their talking heads seem
>to think that you are only allowed 1 copy of a song (say, on vinyl) and if
>you want it in a digital form you have to buy a CD or buy them MP3.

Wonder what they think about someone who buys a CD, then makes a copy
with Toast to play in the car? Would they prefer the person buy two
copies, one to keep at home and one to keep in the car?

I had several CDs stolen from a car several years ago, including some
rare and expensive ones. Luckily they were recovered. Now if I get a
rare CD or buy a box set, better believe I burn a copy and play the
copy in the car, and keep the original safe at home.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++
H.B. Elkins -- Beattyville, KY
http://www.millenniumhwy.net hbelkins(at)mis.net

"There's no doubt he's the best race driver in the world."
--Dale Jarrett, on the late Dale Earnhardt

Go Big Blue (Kentucky Wildcats)! Go #15 (Michael Waltrip, NAPA Chevy)!

Vote Ernie Fletcher for Governor of Kentucky! http://www.fletcher2003.com

To reply, just remove the restrictorplates...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
0
hbelkins
9/12/2003 2:19:44 PM
In article <3f61d590.3294243@news.newsguy.com>,
 hbelkins@restrictorplates.mis.net (H.B. Elkins) wrote:

> MW Castleman <castlema@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >Not to hear some from RIAA talk about it.  Some of their talking heads seem
> >to think that you are only allowed 1 copy of a song (say, on vinyl) and if
> >you want it in a digital form you have to buy a CD or buy them MP3.
> 
> Wonder what they think about someone who buys a CD, then makes a copy
> with Toast to play in the car? Would they prefer the person buy two
> copies, one to keep at home and one to keep in the car?

OF COURSE that's what they'd *PREFER*. All they give a shit about is 
selling another copy. What you do with that second copy holds less 
interest than a bucket of simmering snail snot to them, so long as 
you've handed over your money.  

> I had several CDs stolen from a car several years ago, including some
> rare and expensive ones. Luckily they were recovered. Now if I get a
> rare CD or buy a box set, better believe I burn a copy and play the
> copy in the car, and keep the original safe at home.

It's a matter of perspective: According to the RIAA, you're a thief. 
According to the law of the land (This land, anyway), you're 100% within 
your rights. The trick is managing to keep from going broke while paying 
attorneys idiotic sums of money to tell some jackass in a black robe 
that the law is on your side and the RIAA can go piss up a rope.

-- 
Don Bruder -  dakidd@sonic.net <--- Preferred Email - unmunged, SpamAssassinated
Hate SPAM? See <http://www.spamassassin.org> for some seriously great info.
I will choose a path that's clear: I will choose Free Will! - N. Peart
Fly trap info pages: <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd/Horses/FlyTrap/index.html>
0
Don
9/12/2003 3:06:54 PM
In article <gwestonREMOVE-F3631D.17263911092003@netnews.attbi.com>,
Gregory Weston  <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
>
>RIAA representatives have repeatedly, for far longer than MP3 has 
>existed, asserted that as far as they're concerned the purchased license 
>to content covers not the content but the particular rendition of 
>content-on-media. By their way of thinking, despite any concept of fair 
>use, you are not allowed even to make a tape of a CD you have for use in 
>your car.
>
>I'm very much looking forward to finally having that particular fetish 
>tested and then smacked around with a 2 by 4.

They already gave up that claim with the Audio Home Recording Act.
(One might argue they "gave up" something they had no right to in the
first place, but that was the "compromise" they used to kill audio DAT).

They got their nose rubbed in it with the Rio case.

However, they still claim that owning a particular recording does not
give you the right to download a copy or derivative of that recording
from elsewhere.  They are correct if the only thing allowing format
shifting is the Audio Home Recording Act, but may be incorrect if
format shifting is covered under "fair use".





-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                            mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."  But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of 
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
0
russotto
9/12/2003 3:22:05 PM
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:40:48 GMT, Thomas Reed <thomasareed@dont.spam.me> wrote:
> In article <bjr7ul$mbi5q$3@ID-134476.news.uni-berlin.de>, Dave Hinz
><davehinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
> 
>> > Mm-hmm.  I'm sure there are legit users like that out there.  What
>> > proportion do you suppose they represent?  
>> 
>> Mm-hmm, indeed.  You've gone from "only" to "Yeah, but what is the
>> ratio".
> 
> At a certain point, the difference between "only" and "yeah, but what
> is the ratio" becomes negligible.  

Your statement was an absolute - 'there is no other purpose'.  I showed
that absolute to be incorrect.

> If I say "There are 1000 people that
> stole music in the last minute", and you say "No there aren't, there
> are only 999!", then what's the statistical difference?   

It disproves the absolute of "No other purpose".

>> > And, if Napster, LimeWire
>> > and the like are meant to do good instead of evil, why isn't there a
>> > way to limit sharing of illegal content?
>> 
>> OK, how do *you* propose to identify "illegal content"?
> 
> Commercial music that you don't own and whose owner does not allow free
> distribution of.  Pretty easily defined.

Yes, if you rely on the meatware to do the filtering.  That obviously
doesn't work, as it brings human motivation into it.  If you were trying
to fix that, how would you do it?

>> It's not the tool that is the problem, it's the people who
>> choose to use it illegally.
> 
> Yup, very true -- sort of the "guns don't kill people, people with guns
> kill people" approach.  Of course, guns are controlled in the US, and
> outright illegal in some countries.  How about a set of lock picks? 

Lock picks are actually reasonably controlled.  I can buy them, I can
have them, but if the cops find me breaking into a house with them,
then it's a burglary tool.  Just like the forcible entry tools in
my car's trunk - I'm an EMT and Firefighter.  I use them to get into
cars to help people.  (I direct-respond in a rural area).  So, they're
fine for me or anyone else to have, but if I start breaking into cars
for other than rescue purposes, I again am using a legal tool in an
illegal way.  If you're prying out nails, it's a crowbar.  If you're
breaking into someone's house, it's a burglary tool.  It is the
action of the person using it that makes the difference.

>> Or, because they refuse to buy from an industry who courageously sues
>> 12 year old little girls.
> 
> Who are these 12 year old girls you're talking about?  And if they're
> doing something like illegally distributing music, why shouldn't they
> be sued?  (Or, their parents, anyway.)  If my daughter were to
> shoplift, I wouldn't think it odd that she got in trouble for it.

That particular case is an interesting one.  Rather than try to
describe it, read this:
 
http://cnet.com.com/2100-1027_3-5074227.html

>> I'll just listen to the radio and my
>> extensive (legal) cd and mp3 collection until they stop collectively
>> being a bunch of bullies.
> 
> Heh, who's the bully here?  Seems to me that the public is actively
> taunting the music industry by distributing commercial music freely on
> the internet.  

Read the above article, and then tell me who is being a bully.

> The taunts are only made worse by the fact that the
> legal system has not yet managed to do anything about these illegal
> activities.  

Technically, it would be a civil rather than a criminal issue.

> Do you expect them to just stand there and take the
> punches without defending themselves?

They should be working with mymusic.com and itunes.com, and whatever
other legal sites are out there.  People who want to legally buy 
music on line will do so; those who want to steal it will continue
to do so no matter how inconvenient it's made.

....and claiming there are no legitimate uses for the tools is
a falsehood, and doesn't help to make the point you're trying 
to make.  Just gives people who disagree with you an easy way
to say "See?  He's wrong, so he's all wrong".  Don't make it 
easy for someone to dismiss your argument on one point; it has validity.

Dave Hinz

0
Dave
9/12/2003 3:22:07 PM
In article <seesig-32631C.18481011092003@news4-ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
John Steinberg  <seesig@bottom.invalid> wrote:
>Frederick Cheung wrote:
>
>> That's for them to work out. If you are accusing someone, it's up to you
>> to get your facts straight.
>
>I'm afraid you may have a very tenuous grasp on how the RIAA is 
>functioning here. 

You mean how you're likely to get a cease&desist or worse if you put
up (e.g.) files called Madonna.mp3 and Madonna.jpg which contain
sounds and a photo of a fountain containing a statue of the Virgin
Mary?
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                            mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."  But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of 
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
0
russotto
9/12/2003 3:39:42 PM
In article <iil8b.20997$dk4.651548@typhoon.sonic.net>, Don Bruder
<dakidd@sonic.net> wrote:

> In article <3f61d590.3294243@news.newsguy.com>,
>  hbelkins@restrictorplates.mis.net (H.B. Elkins) wrote:
> 
> > MW Castleman <castlema@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >Not to hear some from RIAA talk about it.  Some of their talking heads seem
> > >to think that you are only allowed 1 copy of a song (say, on vinyl) and if
> > >you want it in a digital form you have to buy a CD or buy them MP3.
> > 
> > Wonder what they think about someone who buys a CD, then makes a copy
> > with Toast to play in the car? Would they prefer the person buy two
> > copies, one to keep at home and one to keep in the car?
> 
> OF COURSE that's what they'd *PREFER*. All they give a shit about is 
> selling another copy. What you do with that second copy holds less 
> interest than a bucket of simmering snail snot to them, so long as 
> you've handed over your money.  

This is straight from the RIAA's own website:

"If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on
your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music
and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the
jogging trail. "

-- 
�There are no mistakes in love.�
- Patty Smyth
0
Keeper
9/12/2003 3:44:56 PM
In article <bjr7o1$mbi5q$2@ID-134476.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Dave Hinz  <davehinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>Proving one's innocence is a leftover from the days of the Spanish
>Inquisition (which, of course, noooooobody expects!).  What doesn't help
>is when people cave to their strong-arm tactics, because it confuses the
>public as to the real issues.

If you don't cave in to their strong-arm tactics, you lose more than
if you do.  This is even if you are 100% innocent, because your lawyer
fees will cost more than a settlement.  If you have even an iota of
guilt they can legally ding you for $150,000 if they win.  

There ain't no justice.
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                            mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."  But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of 
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
0
russotto
9/12/2003 3:45:50 PM
Dave Hinz proclaimed 9/12/03 10:22 AM:remembering "the day of black fate.."

Like i told ya before - The RIAA ~ Music Industry
doesn't have a legal leg to stand on with the pure exception
of genuine Pirates "selling fake imitation..or copies enmass'.
Go back and find my previous post. Maybe someday i'll tell how
i came into that little tidbit of knowledge.  *S*

BUt here's a REAL GOOD QUESTION fer ya  ; O)
i.,e."..So how much "hard time"(that's prison not at 'Club Fed' either)
are they giving the (RIAA) Rec Exec's  that *seed their latest release*
such as the new Madonna / Britney/ Whitney album covertly on NAPSTER?

Don't try to hand me the crap that PRECISELY that is not done either-
because IT IS.!!

Cheers
w
K 
- - - 
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:40:48 GMT, Thomas Reed <thomasareed@dont.spam.me>
> wrote:
>> In article <bjr7ul$mbi5q$3@ID-134476.news.uni-berlin.de>, Dave Hinz
>> <davehinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>> Mm-hmm.  I'm sure there are legit users like that out there.  What
>>>> proportion do you suppose they represent?
>  SNIP a bunch of blather <
> 
>> Do you expect them to just stand there and take the
>> punches without defending themselves?
> 
> They should be working with mymusic.com and itunes.com, and whatever
> other legal sites are out there.  People who want to legally buy
> music on line will do so; those who want to steal it will continue
> to do so no matter how inconvenient it's made.
> 
> ...and claiming there are no legitimate uses for the tools is
> a falsehood, and doesn't help to make the point you're trying
> to make.  Just gives people who disagree with you an easy way
> to say "See?  He's wrong, so he's all wrong".  Don't make it
> easy for someone to dismiss your argument on one point; it has validity.
> 
> Dave Hinz
> 

0
King
9/12/2003 3:50:34 PM
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:29:39 UTC, John Steinberg <seesig@bottom.invalid>
wrote:

> Right, they're after those who make the files available for others and 
> their current threshold appears to be >999 units, but with the freedom 
> granted them by the courts, there's no saying they won't eventually also 
> target downloaders only.

You sure make a lot of claims that don't seem to be backed up by the 
facts. What "freedom" has been granted to the RIAA by the courts? So 
far, there hasn't actually been a court case, just a bunch of paper 
flying. 

Anyone can sue, but not everyone wins.

-- 
Please reply to: v1r0b1k@despammed.com

0
v1r0b1k
9/12/2003 4:08:12 PM
v1r0b1k wrote:

> You sure make a lot of claims that don't seem to be backed up by the 
> facts. What "freedom" has been granted to the RIAA by the courts?

See RIAA v. Verizon for starters, Szilard.

> Anyone can sue, but not everyone wins.

RIAA sues, you lose.  It's a pay me now or pay me later scenario.




-- 
-John Steinberg
email: not@thistime.invalid

....And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. 
                                 --Sir Bedevere
0
John
9/12/2003 4:22:56 PM
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 10:50:34 -0500, King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dave Hinz proclaimed 9/12/03 10:22 AM:remembering "the day of black fate.."

(I didn't write any of what you're attributing to me)

(snip)
> 
> BUt here's a REAL GOOD QUESTION fer ya  ; O)
> i.,e."..So how much "hard time"(that's prison not at 'Club Fed' either)
> are they giving the (RIAA) Rec Exec's  that *seed their latest release*
> such as the new Madonna / Britney/ Whitney album covertly on NAPSTER?
> 
> Don't try to hand me the crap that PRECISELY that is not done either-
> because IT IS.!!

I never said that, or anything vaguely related to that.  Were you
replying to me, or someone else?

0
Dave
9/12/2003 4:46:28 PM
In article <bjsoav$mjku3$1@ID-134476.news.uni-berlin.de>, Dave Hinz
<davehinz@spamcop.net> wrote:

> > At a certain point, the difference between "only" and "yeah, but what
> > is the ratio" becomes negligible.  
> 
> Your statement was an absolute - 'there is no other purpose'.  I showed
> that absolute to be incorrect.

All right, so perhaps I should have said "little other purpose".  I
still stand by that.  AFAICT, the majority of the activity on these P2P
networks is illegal.

> >> OK, how do *you* propose to identify "illegal content"?
> > 
> > Commercial music that you don't own and whose owner does not allow free
> > distribution of.  Pretty easily defined.
> 
> Yes, if you rely on the meatware to do the filtering.  That obviously
> doesn't work, as it brings human motivation into it.  If you were trying
> to fix that, how would you do it?

For starters, any node on a P2P network attempting to distribute known
commercial work freely should be cut off.  Yeah, that would require the
creation of a large database for the purpose of identifying all
commercial music, and it wouldn't work if people munged the titles and
artists using spammer's tricks.  But at least it would be a step.  In
the end, human interaction will be necessary to shut down the egregious
offenders.

> >> Or, because they refuse to buy from an industry who courageously sues
> >> 12 year old little girls.
> > 
> > Who are these 12 year old girls you're talking about?
> 
> That particular case is an interesting one.  Rather than try to
> describe it, read this:
>  
> http://cnet.com.com/2100-1027_3-5074227.html

Hmm, sounds like a perfectly well-justified lawsuit.  A few notes here:

 * The suit couldn't possibly be against the 12-year old; she's a
minor.  The suit would target her parents, and they will be the ones
paying the penalties for not monitoring her activities better.

 * She was apparently sharing more than 1000 songs illegally.  That's a
pretty big offender.

 * Quoting from the article:

     "We understand now that file-sharing the music was illegal," her
     mother, Sylvia Torres, added in the statement. "You can be sure
     Brianna won't be doing it anymore."

  You might claim they should be let off because they weren't aware
that what she was doing was illegal.  Since when do cops let you off
with a warning for going 80 if you claim you didn't know the speed
limit was only 35?  Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense.

> > Heh, who's the bully here?  Seems to me that the public is actively
> > taunting the music industry by distributing commercial music freely on
> > the internet.  
> 
> Read the above article, and then tell me who is being a bully.

Well, I read the article, and it seems to me that the little girl was
distributing about $1,000 of stolen merchandise.  If we assume that
each song was downloaded around 10 times, that's $10,000 worth of music
being downloaded for free rather than bought.

Now, can you kindly explain to me why this individual *shouldn't* be
sued?  The fact that she's 12 only deflects the ultimate responsibility
to her parents.

> > Do you expect them to just stand there and take the
> > punches without defending themselves?
> 
> They should be working with mymusic.com and itunes.com, and whatever
> other legal sites are out there.  People who want to legally buy 
> music on line will do so; those who want to steal it will continue
> to do so no matter how inconvenient it's made.

On your first point, they already *are* working with legal electronic
music distributors.  That's a good move, IMHO, and not one I had ever
thought they'd make.

On the second, you're probably right.  People who steal it will
probably continue to do so.  However, that doesn't mean the music
industry has to sit back and make it easy!  How do you feel about
distribution of stolen serial numbers for commercial software?  Should
the sites distributing them be shut down, or should they be left there
on the theory that people who steal will steal regardless?  What about
my house?  The back door is glass and thus easily broken into -- so
should I leave all my doors open on the theory that a locked door will
only slow down thieves by a few seconds?

No.  The fact is that if it's harder to steal, some people don't. 
Perhaps they don't know where to find the music or the serial numbers. 
Maybe they don't know there's a glass door and don't want to look
suspicious walking around back to look for one.

Some people who steal music are just poor ignorant technophobes who
don't understand that it's stealing -- after all, if it's stealing, why
is it still so easy to do?

-- 
-Thomas

<http://www.bitjuggler.com/>
0
Thomas
9/12/2003 5:38:49 PM
In article <3f61d35e.2781422@news.newsguy.com>,
 hbelkins@restrictorplates.mis.net (H.B. Elkins) wrote:

> By the same token, maybe the RIAA should sue Roxio to halt the sale of
> Toast. After all, it's a tool that allows music to be stolen. Who
> among us doesn't know someone who's burned a copy of a music CD for a
> friend or relative?

Interesting Canada copyright fact: 

In Canada they collect levies on all blank media and the money is 
distributed to record companies and performing rights orgs. It is now 
legal to loan your CDs to your friends so they can make CD copies of 
them. Paradoxically, it is an infringement of copyright to make copies 
of your CDs and give them away to your friends. So sayeth the Copyright 
Board of Canada. I didn't believe it until I read the documents myself.

http://cda-cb.gc.ca/decisions/copying-e.html
0
Bob
9/12/2003 5:49:10 PM
Bob Realist proclaimed 9/12/03 12:49 PM:remembering "the day of black
fate.."

> In article <3f61d35e.2781422@news.newsguy.com>,
> hbelkins@restrictorplates.mis.net (H.B. Elkins) wrote:
> 
>> By the same token, maybe the RIAA should sue Roxio to halt the sale of
>> Toast. After all, it's a tool that allows music to be stolen. Who
>> among us doesn't know someone who's burned a copy of a music CD for a
>> friend or relative?
> 
> Interesting Canada copyright fact:
> 
> In Canada they collect levies on all blank media and the money is
> distributed to record companies and performing rights orgs. It is now
> legal to loan your CDs to your friends so they can make CD copies of
> them. Paradoxically, it is an infringement of copyright to make copies
> of your CDs and give them away to your friends. So sayeth the Copyright
> Board of Canada. I didn't believe it until I read the documents myself.
> 
> http://cda-cb.gc.ca/decisions/copying-e.html

This is the *exact opposite* of the
contract-RIAA-signed-with-the-TechToy makers from the start.!.
You will discover that the CORPORATE Music Industry(that's the RIAA)
(as i stated before in my first post to this thread)
- - PAYS the BLANK MEDIA Companies..and CD-R*/DVD-R* device makers
just as they have for years struck the same contract to then VHS-VCR*
and Compact Cassette Recorder industries to build,proliferate and SELL
all their *recording devices & accompanying media*.

If the RIAA had any legal leg to stand on to ban the everyday citizen
from using and making duplicate recordings - they would have to destroy
their contractual agreements with the *recorder makers* and move
through the LEGAL COURTS to have all *recording devices banned*
as they are nothing less than * DUPLICATING DEVICES *.
  It is precisely and ONLY because of the RIAA that the general public
has available to them every kind of *duplicating/recording system* made.
Otherwise the only thing ANYONE would have is a *'X.?? --PLAYER*
...a "player" -- not a "recorder/duplicator" .

And damn sure no DVD/CDRW's at Best Buy neither.!!
HAA!!!

Cheers,
w
K

0
King
9/12/2003 6:23:28 PM
rOn Fri, 12 Sep 2003, King Neptune wrote:

> Bob Realist proclaimed 9/12/03 12:49 PM:remembering "the day of black
> fate.."
>
> > In article <3f61d35e.2781422@news.newsguy.com>,
> > hbelkins@restrictorplates.mis.net (H.B. Elkins) wrote:
> >
> >> By the same token, maybe the RIAA should sue Roxio to halt the sale of
> >> Toast. After all, it's a tool that allows music to be stolen. Who
> >> among us doesn't know someone who's burned a copy of a music CD for a
> >> friend or relative?
> >
> > Interesting Canada copyright fact:
> >
> > In Canada they collect levies on all blank media and the money is
> > distributed to record companies and performing rights orgs. It is now
> > legal to loan your CDs to your friends so they can make CD copies of
> > them. Paradoxically, it is an infringement of copyright to make copies
> > of your CDs and give them away to your friends. So sayeth the Copyright
> > Board of Canada. I didn't believe it until I read the documents myself.
> >
> > http://cda-cb.gc.ca/decisions/copying-e.html
>
> This is the *exact opposite* of the
> contract-RIAA-signed-with-the-TechToy makers from the start.!.
> You will discover that the CORPORATE Music Industry(that's the RIAA)
> (as i stated before in my first post to this thread)
> - - PAYS the BLANK MEDIA Companies..and CD-R*/DVD-R* device makers
> just as they have for years struck the same contract to then VHS-VCR*
> and Compact Cassette Recorder industries to build,proliferate and SELL
> all their *recording devices & accompanying media*.
>
What evidence do you have of this? And why on earth would the RIAA do
that?

> If the RIAA had any legal leg to stand on to ban the everyday citizen
> from using and making duplicate recordings - they would have to destroy
> their contractual agreements with the *recorder makers* and move
> through the LEGAL COURTS to have all *recording devices banned*
> as they are nothing less than * DUPLICATING DEVICES *.

Universal and Walt Disney Productions on behalf of the Hollywood
majors tried that when Sony started selling VCRs. To cut a long story
short the Supreme court ended up ruling in favour of Sony.

Fred

0
Frederick
9/12/2003 7:53:50 PM
Frederick Cheung proclaimed 9/12/03 2:53 PM:remembering "the day of black
fate.."

> rOn Fri, 12 Sep 2003, King Neptune wrote:
> 
>> Bob Realist proclaimed 9/12/03 12:49 PM:remembering "the day of black
>> fate.."
>> 
>>> In article <3f61d35e.2781422@news.newsguy.com>,
>>> hbelkins@restrictorplates.mis.net (H.B. Elkins) wrote:
>>> 
>>>> By the same token, maybe the RIAA should sue Roxio to halt the sale of
>>>> Toast. After all, it's a tool that allows music to be stolen. Who
>>>> among us doesn't know someone who's burned a copy of a music CD for a
>>>> friend or relative?
>>> 
>>> Interesting Canada copyright fact:
>>> 
>>> In Canada they collect levies on all blank media and the money is
>>> distributed to record companies and performing rights orgs. It is now
>>> legal to loan your CDs to your friends so they can make CD copies of
>>> them. Paradoxically, it is an infringement of copyright to make copies
>>> of your CDs and give them away to your friends. So sayeth the Copyright
>>> Board of Canada. I didn't believe it until I read the documents myself.
>>> 
>>> http://cda-cb.gc.ca/decisions/copying-e.html
>> 
>> This is the *exact opposite* of the
>> contract-RIAA-signed-with-the-TechToy makers from the start.!.
>> You will discover that the CORPORATE Music Industry(that's the RIAA)
>> (as i stated before in my first post to this thread)
>> - - PAYS the BLANK MEDIA Companies..and CD-R*/DVD-R* device makers
>> just as they have for years struck the same contract to then VHS-VCR*
>> and Compact Cassette Recorder industries to build,proliferate and SELL
>> all their *recording devices & accompanying media*.
>> 
> What evidence do you have of this? And why on earth would the RIAA do
> that?
It's an OLD fact.! -- but like i said before
"maybe i would tell you where i found out" --try the *Janis Ian homepage*
Do you remember her.??  The songs she's recorded - like SEVENTEEN.?
Don't know if you'll find it in the archives there anymore..was near a year
ago when all this was sorted out ten times over already at ther website.
She had a bulletin board for all to post to..was at:
http://www.janisian.com/

>> If the RIAA had any legal leg to stand on to ban the everyday citizen
>> from using and making duplicate recordings - they would have to destroy
>> their contractual agreements with the *recorder makers* and move
>> through the LEGAL COURTS to have all *recording devices banned*
>> as they are nothing less than * DUPLICATING DEVICES *.
> 
> Universal and Walt Disney Productions on behalf of the Hollywood
> majors tried that when Sony started selling VCRs. To cut a long story
> short the Supreme court ended up ruling in favour of Sony.
> 
> Fred

People in this thread are yantering back & forth alot
about how the RIAA can file suit and have in a couple cases
(think one was in Arizona..Colo maybe?? - wherever) gotten conviction
on copyright legaleze that some stray Judge has fallen for.
Sure.!! -- and sure it's ALWAYS true that lawyers court will
unfairly strip a man of his wealth even when he's in the right*.
(as are the vast majority in these copy issues - not arguing the obvious)
That's just the typical "catch 22" that's got the common man by the legal
balls -- uhuh??.. nothing new there.
But what I am arguing is that it's the RIAA and all the CORP Music Industry
they and themselves that have perpetuated the ability for everyone to make
copies --- and they CONTINUE to command the industry to do so.

If that means the RIAA is a bunch of doubly corrupt bloody bastards??
Then it most certainly does.. and that is that.
But no one can change the facts - that this is ALL their doing.
Hell... to them it's all in the Big Bizness picture of things  ; )
Complete wankers indeed.

Cheers
w
K

0
King
9/12/2003 8:52:45 PM
Esa Toivonen writes:
> David C. wrote:
>> Esa Toivonen writes:
>>> 
>>> Then, why all these copy protection systems, that prevent home
>>> users from making easily those "perfectly legal" digital copies
>>> for their own use, BUT *don't* prevent criminals from producing
>>> illegal material for commercial black market distribution with
>>> their pro equipment?
>> 
>> The fact that it's leagal doesn't mean they approve, and it doesn't
>> mean they have to make it easier for you.
> 
> Why bother using protection, if they don't have any special target? 

Who said they don't?

The recording industry doesn't want you making copies for personal
use.  It is perfectly legal, but they want to prevent it anyway.
Hence the copy protection schemes.

Contrary to what the RIAA would have you believe, the recording
industry doesn't define the law.  (They only pay off Congressmen, who
make the laws for them.)

-- David
0
shamino
9/12/2003 11:36:53 PM
John Steinberg writes:
> v1r0b1k wrote:
>>
>> You sure make a lot of claims that don't seem to be backed up by
>> the facts. What "freedom" has been granted to the RIAA by the
>> courts?
> 
> See RIAA v. Verizon for starters, Szilard.

That wasn't granted by the courts.  It was by Congress.  The DMCA
explicitly grants copyright holders the right to issue subpoenas
without proving anything to a judge.

-- David
0
shamino
9/12/2003 11:40:38 PM
Keeper of the Purple Twilight writes:
> 
> Also, I was finally able to connect to the RIAA's web site (after
> many attempts to connect, failed), and this is what they say:
> 
> "If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on
> your computer or portable music player, that's great.  It's your
> music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and
> on the jogging trail. But the fact that technology exists to enable
> unlimited Internet distribution of music copies doesn't make it
> right. "
> 
> I guess that pretty much settles it.  The mere fact of listening to
> MP3's that you've ripped from your own CDs, via iTunes, is legal.
> So is putting those MP3's on an iPod.  It's only sharing them over
> the 'net that's illegal.

Which, IMO, is a perfectly reasonable position.

Now if they could only choose to defend their legitimate copyright
claims using less draconian measures ...

-- David
0
shamino
9/12/2003 11:43:28 PM
Keeper of the Purple Twilight writes:
> Don Bruder wrote:
>> H.B. Elkins wrote:
>>> 
>>> Wonder what they think about someone who buys a CD, then makes a
>>> copy with Toast to play in the car? Would they prefer the person
>>> buy two copies, one to keep at home and one to keep in the car?
>> 
>> OF COURSE that's what they'd *PREFER*. All they give a shit about
>> is selling another copy. What you do with that second copy holds
>> less interest than a bucket of simmering snail snot to them, so
>> long as you've handed over your money.
> 
> This is straight from the RIAA's own website:
> 
> "If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on
> your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your
> music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and
> on the jogging trail. "

This is their official position.  They have to have this position,
because it's what the law allows.

But it's definitely not what they want.  If they wanted you to be
able to make copies of legally-purchased media, then they wouldn't
have sued Diamond over the Rio and they wouldn't be promoting CDs
with embedded copy-protection schemes.

-- David
0
shamino
9/12/2003 11:52:23 PM
David C. wrote:


> That wasn't granted by the courts.

http://www.eff.org/Cases/RIAA_v_Verizon/
http://www.eff.org/Cases/RIAA_v_Verizon/20030121_pr.php


-- 
-John Steinberg
email: not@thistime.invalid

....And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. 
                                 --Sir Bedevere
0
John
9/13/2003 12:52:50 AM
In article <seesig-F2B9FA.20293611092003@news4-ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
 John Steinberg <seesig@bottom.invalid> wrote:

> The World Wide Wade wrote:
> 
> > What sort of digital fingerprining are you talking about? If you've got an 
> > mp3 sitting on your hard drive, how in the hell could they tell if was 
> > illegally obtained or not?
> 
> I think David C. has covered this question perfectly.

But you wrote "they are using digital fingerprinting to press these cases 
...." And that's false. They are not using anything like what David C. 
described, and they are not going after downloaders.

And David C. suggested a pretty draconian hypothetical scenario, leaving 
several questions unanswered. We're far away from the impounding of 
computers and all that in the current RIAA actions. We really have no idea 
how the RIAA would go after downloaders at this point.
0
The
9/13/2003 2:15:07 AM
In article <waderameyxiii-78B5B1.19150712092003@news.supernews.com>,
 The World Wide Wade <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> wrote:

> In article <seesig-F2B9FA.20293611092003@news4-ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
>  John Steinberg <seesig@bottom.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > The World Wide Wade wrote:
> > 
> > > What sort of digital fingerprining are you talking about? If you've got 
> > > an 
> > > mp3 sitting on your hard drive, how in the hell could they tell if was 
> > > illegally obtained or not?
> > 
> > I think David C. has covered this question perfectly.
> 
> But you wrote "they are using digital fingerprinting to press these cases 
> ..." And that's false. They are not using anything like what David C. 
> described, and they are not going after downloaders.
> 
> And David C. suggested a pretty draconian hypothetical scenario, leaving 
> several questions unanswered. We're far away from the impounding of 
> computers and all that in the current RIAA actions. We really have no idea 
> how the RIAA would go after downloaders at this point.

Actually, there are isolated and anecdotal cases of people having 
machines impounded essentially at the demand of the RIAA. We are also 
known to be already experiencing such actions for proven copyright 
infringement in general. Given this:

] The DMCA explicitly grants copyright holders the right to issue
] subpoenas without proving anything to a judge.

It would seem like they've got pretty free reign to produce that proof 
once they have what they believe is a reason to suspect you.

G
0
Gregory
9/13/2003 12:19:36 PM
Gregory Weston proclaimed 9/13/03 7:19 AM:remembering "the day of black
fate.."

> ] The DMCA explicitly grants copyright holders the right to issue
> ] subpoenas without proving anything to a judge.

for one thing....for a subpoena to be served - you must have
a court case already slated - which means that prior to that
you must have a 'court hearing' an some level of "judge" to which
*proof of good cause* must be submitted BEFORE proceeding.

Unless you live in AFGANISTAN.. OR IRAQ.?? - subpoena's arn't issued
without a judge's signature..or technical approval. - that's due process.
Sound familiar??

> 
> It would seem like they've got pretty free reign to produce that proof
> once they have what they believe is a reason to suspect you.
> G
Whomever brings forth charges can be countersued for 'false accusal'.
Judges can deem the 'pretrial evidence'(that's same as above-Hearing)
""... as inflated and too weak to proceed.. and throw the case out..""

He also has the option to charge the plantiff(RIAA) for bringing
forth to many *frivilous charges/cases* - and that would probably
apply to MP3-copyrights-claims.. again & again.
So filing suits is a two-way street & judges have to issue"search warrants"

Atleast until the Firemen show-up to empty and burn
all the books from your home.  Indeed  ; )

w
Montage

0
King
9/13/2003 2:53:48 PM
In article <110920031306175218%no@spam.invalid>,
 Keeper of the Purple Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

> 
> No, but who can stand up to the RIAA?
> > 
Well, lets see...there is a lawyer here in California who has filed a 
suit against them for some lady fron New York.  Verizon is still trying 
to fight them and not give up names.
Oh, and then there is Congress who WROTE the misguided law that the RIAA 
is applying here.  Sen Orin Hatch (R - Utah) is going to be holding 
hearings to a) invesatigate the RIAAs tactics and use of the provisions 
in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (did I get that right?) and b) 
review tha DMCA itself to see if it needs to changed or even thrown out.  
I suspect at some point this will end up at Supreme Courts doorstep and 
then be settled....
-- 
Slartibartfast
Winner of the prestigious "Fijords" award;
Fijords and Continents Dept
Magrethea Planetary Industries
www.magrathea.org
bartfasts@magrathea.org
0
Slartibartfast
9/13/2003 5:29:03 PM
John Steinberg <seesig@bottom.invalid> writes:
> David C. wrote:
> 
> > That wasn't granted by the courts.
> 
> http://www.eff.org/Cases/RIAA_v_Verizon/
> http://www.eff.org/Cases/RIAA_v_Verizon/20030121_pr.php

Maybe you should read your own links.  Quoting from the page you
provided:

        The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), using a
        controversial subpoena provision introduced by the 1998
        Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). sought to have
        Verizon Internet Services reveal the identity of a Verizon
        subscriber because the subscriber allegedly used KaZaA
        peer-to-peer software to share music online. Verizon refused
        to divulge the subscriber's identity, claiming that the
        provision didn't cover alleged copyright-infringing material
        that resides on individuals' own computers, it only covers
        material that resides on an ISP's own computer. 

        In January 2003 a Judge Bates of the Washington D.C. District
        Court rejected Verizon's interpretation of the DMCA subpoena
        provision, ordering Verizon to reveal the subscriber's
        identity. The decision was appealed, and in the intervening
        time Verizon sought to quash a second subpoena.

Please note the first sentence - "using a controversial subpoena
provision introduced by the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act".

The court didn't write the DMCA.  Congress did.

The court upheld law as written.  They didn't create anything new.

-- David
0
shamino
9/13/2003 7:41:30 PM
King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> writes:
> 
> for one thing....for a subpoena to be served - you must have a court
> case already slated - which means that prior to that you must have a
> 'court hearing' an some level of "judge" to which *proof of good
> cause* must be submitted BEFORE proceeding.

Except if you are planning to sue under the DMCA.  Please keep up
with current events.

-- David
0
shamino
9/13/2003 7:43:59 PM
David C. wrote:

> The court didn't write the DMCA.  Congress did.

Did I write that they did?

> The court upheld law as written.  They didn't create anything new.

With respect, you're engaging in logical fallacy here, David.  Not a big 
deal, this is Usenet after all, but this tangent doesn't really further 
the discussion in a meaningful way. At least as far as I'm concerned.

The concern is, as I understood it, was the process as it exists today. 
No mo', no less.

-- 
-John Steinberg
email: not@thistime.invalid

....And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. 
                                 --Sir Bedevere
0
John
9/13/2003 7:58:10 PM
John Steinberg <seesig@bottom.invalid> writes:
> David C. wrote:
>> 
>> The court didn't write the DMCA.  Congress did.
> 
> Did I write that they did?

Please go back and read the thread I'm replying to.  You obviously
missed the context.

The person I replied to was claiming that the courts are writing laws
on behalf of the RIAA to grant them rights that they shouldn't have.

I replied that those rights were granted by Congress, as a part of
the DMCA.

Then you came along and said I was wrong, citing those EFF articles,
which support my point.  I no longer have any clue what your point
was, or if you even had one to begin with.

-- David
0
shamino
9/13/2003 8:09:13 PM
David C. proclaimed 9/13/03 2:43 PM:remembering "the day of black fate.."

> King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> for one thing....for a subpoena to be served - you must have a court
>> case already slated - which means that prior to that you must have a
>> 'court hearing' an some level of "judge" to which *proof of good
>> cause* must be submitted BEFORE proceeding.
> 
> Except if you are planning to sue under the DMCA.  Please keep up
> with current events.
> 
> -- David
Wrong.. though "records of your electronic movements" may be
divulged by your ISP - that in no way.. constitutes a "personal subpoena"
to wit you would be forced to appear in a court of law.
Please take a basic law course  ; )

w
K

0
King
9/13/2003 8:09:22 PM
David C. wrote:

> Then you came along and said I was wrong.

I think someone is imagining things, and it's not me, pal. Maybe you 
didn't get enough to eat today or maybe your skin is about as thick as a 
frog hair?

I never said anything of the kind, nor did I even imply it.  Perhaps 
you've confused me with someone else, or perhaps our comments are simply 
crossing wires?

You know, like I say the sky is blue and you say Ho Chi Minh was a fine 
orator.

But, anyway, I know how some folks just have to be right and get that 
last word in, so knock yourself out here. And feel free to misquote me 
or make up any imagined paraphrasing you like. 

A few more logical fallacies are good, too. If nothing else, they are 
amusing for the home viewer.

-- 
-John Steinberg
email: not@thistime.invalid

....And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. 
                                 --Sir Bedevere
0
John
9/13/2003 8:43:29 PM
In article <BB8899AC.B7AF%hopestarrr@hotmail.com>,
 King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Gregory Weston proclaimed 9/13/03 7:19 AM:remembering "the day of black
> fate.."
> 
> > ] The DMCA explicitly grants copyright holders the right to issue
> > ] subpoenas without proving anything to a judge.
> 
> for one thing....for a subpoena to be served - you must have
> a court case already slated - which means that prior to that
> you must have a 'court hearing' an some level of "judge" to which
> *proof of good cause* must be submitted BEFORE proceeding.
> 
> Unless you live in AFGANISTAN.. OR IRAQ.?? - subpoena's arn't issued
> without a judge's signature..or technical approval. - that's due process.
> Sound familiar??

Yes, it does. Have you noticed that the right to due process in the 
United States, as a practical matter if not on paper, has been steadily 
eroding for decades? Let's look again: in the case of the DMCA, "without 
proving anything" would appear to supercede the necessity of "proof of 
good cause," no?


> > It would seem like they've got pretty free reign to produce that proof
> > once they have what they believe is a reason to suspect you.
> > G
>
> Whomever brings forth charges can be countersued for 'false accusal'.
> Judges can deem the 'pretrial evidence'(that's same as above-Hearing)
> ""... as inflated and too weak to proceed.. and throw the case out..""

Yes, but what makes you believe the RIAA's cases have any real 
likelihood of going to trial?


> Atleast until the Firemen show-up to empty and burn
> all the books from your home.  Indeed  ; )

Hmmm. Remember what happened to Steve Jackson Games several years ago?
0
Gregory
9/14/2003 1:15:23 PM
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<MuadnRYdgsYdQf2iRTvUqQ@speakeasy.net>...
> In article <110920031400273928%star@sky.net>, Davoud  <star@sky.com> wrote:
> >

> And performing the work in public is a no-no too, but maybe singing
> "Happy Birthday" at your kid's birthday party isn't; depends on where
> you are and how many guests are present.

"Exposing the Happy Birthday story"
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/7/5/112441/6280
http://www.jazz-sax.com/articles/03/06/30/066203.shtml?tid=71
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/943017/posts
0
prevent_spam_email
9/14/2003 4:35:33 PM
In article <c5f94a40.0309140835.44da7cad@posting.google.com>,
 prevent_spam_email@yahoo.com (J. Byron) wrote:

> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message 
> news:<MuadnRYdgsYdQf2iRTvUqQ@speakeasy.net>...
> > In article <110920031400273928%star@sky.net>, Davoud  <star@sky.com> wrote:
> > >
> 
> > And performing the work in public is a no-no too, but maybe singing
> > "Happy Birthday" at your kid's birthday party isn't; depends on where
> > you are and how many guests are present.
> 
> "Exposing the Happy Birthday story"
> http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/7/5/112441/6280
> http://www.jazz-sax.com/articles/03/06/30/066203.shtml?tid=71
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/943017/posts

I'm not sure why you give 3 different URL's for the same article, all 
written by you, but I'm glad I read it. In it you write "Under the U. S. 
law of 1909, the effective date of copyright is the date of first 
publication." But an author need not publish the work at all to have a 
copyright. The author automatically has a copyright on the first date in 
which his work is put in *tangible form* - which could be scribbling on a 
napkin.
0
The
9/14/2003 5:42:55 PM
>Gregory Weston proclaimed 9/14/03 8:15 AM:
>>> Gregory Weston proclaimed 9/13/03 7:19 AM:remembering "the day of black
>>> fate.."
< snip for brevity >
>> Unless you live in AFGANISTAN.. OR IRAQ.?? - subpoena's arn't issued
>> without a judge's signature..or technical approval. - that's due process.
>> Sound familiar??
> 
> Yes, it does. Have you noticed that the right to due process in the
> United States, as a practical matter if not on paper, has been steadily
> eroding for decades? Let's look again: in the case of the DMCA, "without
> proving anything" would appear to supercede the necessity of "proof of
> good cause," no?

At first it sounds bad - however, the "proof' a copyright holder
would submit is as simple as the original draft/version w/date pertaining
to whatever record of download is beoing sought.
So as to say - it's a "dragnet approach" to serching ISP's records
for any given list of files thereby which the offense is "self evidentiary".

Just like Congress sitting on there hands in approval of CARNIVORE
the Cray-supercomputer godzilla that devours all ISP's xfer's,, emails.etc.
  They have "no proof" anyone is breaking any law 'spying the Cyber Hiway'
it's soon as they "net the offending material" -everything turns 180�.
At the exact same moment - the FBI has 'evidence..criminal..and good cause'
and a court case materializes.
 
This is all because Congress refuses to acknowledge that YOUR COMPUTER
and YOUR INTERNET..and YOUR EMAILS..and YOUR FILES...and YOUR BRAIN
are *PRIVATE* to only YOU and THOSE THAT YOU CHOOSE TO INCLUDE.
awwww-yess.s.s . it's a kick in the common man's ass & an insult to all.


>>> It would seem like they've got pretty free reign to produce that proof
>>> once they have what they believe is a reason to suspect you.
>>> G
Precisely the CARNIVORE stratedgy..  mm-hmm?... The status quo. Yes.

>> 
>> Whomever brings forth charges can be countersued for 'false accusal'.
>> Judges can deem the 'pretrial evidence'(that's same as above-Hearing)
>> ""... as inflated and too weak to proceed.. and throw the case out..""
> 
> Yes, but what makes you believe the RIAA's cases have any real
> likelihood of going to trial?

Well if "We" were to check "... how many challenge speeding tickets..?"
out of 100 people you might find 2 or 3 that actually plead innocent
and get a lawyer and really put up a fight for exoneration. The rest 97
"just pay the money' and mutter curse words leaving the building. right?

This doesn't mean ALL of those speeding "charges" couldn't be beat
or atleast lessened to lower charges..lower fines.etc.,.
So that answer lays in something more subjective than logical.
Personally, i've always been one of the 2 or 3 -- and either won outright
or atleast had my punitive charges decreased - everytime.

But it's a matter of who will challenge the charges. There ARE strategies.
 
>> Atleast until the Firemen show-up to empty and burn
>> all the books from your home.  Indeed  ; )
> 
> Hmmm. Remember what happened to Steve Jackson Games several years ago?

Ohh!!-- don't get me wrong.?., my friend - - I practically expect Geo Bush
to establish a Beureau of SWAT-like agents who carry AOL-cd's upon chest
instead of Sherriff's badges. Batter-Ramming every neighborhood geeks door!
SURE!!  ..  Soon as he wins his second term.. he'll anouce "The Net Police"
and he'll say it's to save - "The Children of this land - GOD BLEZ AMERICA"
.. .LOL ; )
w
K

0
King
9/14/2003 7:59:45 PM
The World Wide Wade <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> wrote in message news:<waderameyxiii-0CE11A.10425514092003@news.supernews.com>...
> In article <c5f94a40.0309140835.44da7cad@posting.google.com>,
>  prevent_spam_email@yahoo.com (J. Byron) wrote:
> 
> > russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message 
> > news:<MuadnRYdgsYdQf2iRTvUqQ@speakeasy.net>...
> > > In article <110920031400273928%star@sky.net>, Davoud  <star@sky.com> wrote:
> > > >
>  
> > > And performing the work in public is a no-no too, but maybe singing
> > > "Happy Birthday" at your kid's birthday party isn't; depends on where
> > > you are and how many guests are present.
> > 
> > "Exposing the Happy Birthday story"
> > http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/7/5/112441/6280
> > http://www.jazz-sax.com/articles/03/06/30/066203.shtml?tid=71
> > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/943017/posts
> 
> I'm not sure why you give 3 different URL's for the same article, all 
> written by you, but I'm glad I read it. In it you write "Under the U. S. 

Because at least two of these sites are not always accessible.

> law of 1909, the effective date of copyright is the date of first 
> publication." But an author need not publish the work at all to have a 
> copyright. The author automatically has a copyright on the first date in 
> which his work is put in *tangible form* - which could be scribbling on a 
> napkin.

No. The 1909 U. S. Copyright Act did not cover unregistered/unpublished works.
0
prevent_spam_email
9/14/2003 9:17:06 PM
The World Wide Wade <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> wrote in message news:<waderameyxiii-0CE11A.10425514092003@news.supernews.com>...
> In article <c5f94a40.0309140835.44da7cad@posting.google.com>,
>  prevent_spam_email@yahoo.com (J. Byron) wrote:
> 

> In it you write "Under the U. S. 
> law of 1909, the effective date of copyright is the date of first 
> publication." But an author need not publish the work at all to have a 
> copyright. The author automatically has a copyright on the first date in 
> which his work is put in *tangible form* - which could be scribbling on a 
> napkin.

http://www.copyright.gov/pr/pdomain.html
0
prevent_spam_email
9/14/2003 9:34:38 PM
Gregory Weston wrote:
> Yes, it does. Have you noticed that the right to due process in the 
> United States, as a practical matter if not on paper, has been steadily 
> eroding for decades? Let's look again: in the case of the DMCA, "without 
> proving anything" would appear to supercede the necessity of "proof of 

Was there ever a time when "innocent until
proven guilty" applied to IRS penalties?

-- 
Wes Groleau
   "Grant me the serenity to accept those I cannot change;
    the courage to change the one I can;
    and the wisdom to know it's me."
                                -- unknown

0
Wes
9/15/2003 12:26:06 AM
In article <c5f94a40.0309141317.739aa389@posting.google.com>,
 prevent_spam_email@yahoo.com (J. Byron) wrote:

> > I'm not sure why you give 3 different URL's for the same article, all 
> > written by you, but I'm glad I read it. In it you write "Under the U. S. 
> 
> Because at least two of these sites are not always accessible.

I think it would be a good idea to tell people it's exactly the same 
article in each case.

> > law of 1909, the effective date of copyright is the date of first 
> > publication." But an author need not publish the work at all to have a 
> > copyright. The author automatically has a copyright on the first date in 
> > which his work is put in *tangible form* - which could be scribbling on a 
> > napkin.
> 
> No. The 1909 U. S. Copyright Act did not cover unregistered/unpublished works.

I guess I misunderstood your meaning. I thought you were implying this 
effective date criterion still applies - to works currently being created. 
Perhaps you misunderstood me also, because regardless of what the 1909 law 
says, what I wrote is true: "An author need not publish the work at all to 
have a copyright. The author automatically has a copyright on the first 
date in which his work is put in *tangible form*." Note the present tense 
"need not". I'm talking about now. And in fact the same applies to all 
works created since 1976.
0
The
9/15/2003 1:15:31 AM
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 01:15:31 UTC, The World Wide Wade 
<waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> wrote:

> Perhaps you misunderstood me also, because regardless of what the 1909 law 
> says, what I wrote is true: "An author need not publish the work at all to 
> have a copyright. The author automatically has a copyright on the first 
> date in which his work is put in *tangible form*." Note the present tense 
> "need not". I'm talking about now. And in fact the same applies to all 
> works created since 1976.
> 

However, the benefits of Copyright Law only truly accrue if 
you_register_the work. Willful infringement of a registered work affords
a penalty of $150,000 PLUS legal fees per infringement while 
unregistered works can only collect actual losses.


-- 
Please reply to: v1r0b1k@despammed.com

0
v1r0b1k
9/15/2003 3:14:10 PM
The World Wide Wade <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> wrote in message news:<waderameyxiii-A98571.18153114092003@news.supernews.com>...
> In article <c5f94a40.0309141317.739aa389@posting.google.com>,
>  prevent_spam_email@yahoo.com (J. Byron) wrote:
> 
> I guess I misunderstood your meaning. I thought you were implying this 
> effective date criterion still applies - to works currently being created. 
> Perhaps you misunderstood me also, because regardless of what the 1909 law 
> says, what I wrote is true: "An author need not publish the work at all to 
> have a copyright. The author automatically has a copyright on the first 
> date in which his work is put in *tangible form*." Note the present tense 
> "need not". I'm talking about now. And in fact the same applies to all 
> works created since 1976.

Right, because of the Berne convention mainly. BTW in the U. S. you do
have to register each piece to be awarded any damages in court. This
requirement has been upheld in court. And if you want to be able to
threaten an infringer with statutory damages (like the RIAA does) you
must register before such infringement. But you might have known that.
But in the Happy Birthday situation, all I was really saying is that
the variation was in fact published as hard copy prior to Berlin using
it onstage and the singing telegrams.
0
prevent_spam_email
9/15/2003 3:26:22 PM
In article <m2u17hwp6y.fsf@qqqq.invalid>, David C. <shamino@techie.com> wrote:
>John Steinberg writes:
>> v1r0b1k wrote:
>>>
>>> You sure make a lot of claims that don't seem to be backed up by
>>> the facts. What "freedom" has been granted to the RIAA by the
>>> courts?
>> 
>> See RIAA v. Verizon for starters, Szilard.
>
>That wasn't granted by the courts.  It was by Congress.  The DMCA
>explicitly grants copyright holders the right to issue subpoenas
>without proving anything to a judge.

The judge stretched it to cover network providers, when the
preconditions required to get the subpoena made it far more likely to
have been meant to cover only hosting providers.

Specifically, one of the preconditions of getting the subpoena was the
sending of a "takedown" letter as specified in the section on hosting
providers ( 17 USC 512(c), I believe).  Takedown letters don't apply to
network providers ( 512(a) ).  But the judge decided that didn't
matter.



-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                            mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."  But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of 
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
0
russotto
9/15/2003 6:34:18 PM
In article <waderameyxiii-78B5B1.19150712092003@news.supernews.com>,
The World Wide Wade  <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> wrote:

>computers and all that in the current RIAA actions. We really have no idea 
>how the RIAA would go after downloaders at this point.

But we can be sure they are working on it.


-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                            mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."  But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of 
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
0
russotto
9/15/2003 6:37:04 PM
In article <BB8899AC.B7AF%hopestarrr@hotmail.com>,
King Neptune  <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Gregory Weston proclaimed 9/13/03 7:19 AM:remembering "the day of black
>fate.."
>
>> ] The DMCA explicitly grants copyright holders the right to issue
>> ] subpoenas without proving anything to a judge.
>
>for one thing....for a subpoena to be served - you must have
>a court case already slated - which means that prior to that
>you must have a 'court hearing' an some level of "judge" to which
>*proof of good cause* must be submitted BEFORE proceeding.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                            mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."  But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of 
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
0
russotto
9/15/2003 6:45:10 PM

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, it was written:

> In article <110920031306175218%no@spam.invalid>,
>  Keeper of the Purple Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <110920031400273928%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > You ought to be able to reasonably answer this for yourself. Who --
> > > other than the RIAA -- can say with certainty whether they will target
> > > you? Do you have a history of being charged with crimes that you did
> > > not commit?
> >
> > No, but who can stand up to the RIAA?
> > >
> > > I think that the RIAA's methods are a bit draconian, *but* the
> > > America-is-already-dumbed-down crowd are trying to make this out to be
> > > a complex issue. Theft isn't really very complex. Are you the copyright
> > > holder? No? Then you may not distribute the work.
> >
> > I'm not distributing anything!
> > >
> > > I wonder if it's good for our society to have a generation of people
> > > who think that stealing is OK as long as one steals something that is
> > > easy to steal. Will this generation legalize car theft in the case of
> > > unlocked cars, or cars with the keys left in them, or perhaps legalize
> > > the theft of any item that is unattended by its owner?
> >
> > Look, I already said:  All the MP3s I have, are ripped FROM CDs THAT I
> > OWN AND THAT I BOUGHT LEGALLY.  Nobody else ever sees these MP3s.  I
> > don't share them, nobody downloads them, I don't use P2P software, and
> > I don't even make "mix" CDs.  All I do is listen to these MP3s when I'm
> > sitting at my computer.  I'm not stealing anything.
>
> Are you using "backup" copies of the CDs in your car?  That _might_ be a
> violation of copyright, since RIAA want you to buy another licensed copy
> to listen to there.
>

Its not a violation.  You can make copies for *personal* use.  That
precedent is clear.  Also, from making home tapes, the same has always
applied.
It is file *sharing* that they are after.


0
Expletive
9/15/2003 9:25:21 PM

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Thomas Reed wrote:

> In article <no.spam-0B9B56.14221511092003@news.verizon.net>, Al
> <no.spam@here.com> wrote:
>
> > Maybe it's time for a boycott of the music industry. What say?
>
> Okay, this is going way OT, but...
>
> I wonder where we would be today if not for apps like Napster,
> LimeWire, etc.  Whatever the advocates of these programs pretend, they
> exist for one purpose and one purpose only -- to steal music.  Oh,
> yeah, you can call it sharing...  and that mugger is just borrowing
> your wallet!
>

music?!  I thought they were for porn!



0
Expletive
9/15/2003 9:28:06 PM
Getting back to the original question of this thread.

Anyone can file suit against anyone.  It is then for the courts to 
decide.

So, RIAA can hit you, cause you to spend all your assets and then lose 
and you have no recourse unless you can find a lawyer to counter-sue 
them and try to get close to even. And, you will not get anywhere close 
to even (the lawyer will see to that)!

I guess the only thing you can do is get off cyberspace.
0
clw
9/15/2003 11:58:01 PM
Matthew Russotto proclaimed 9/15/03 1:45 PM:

> In article <BB8899AC.B7AF%hopestarrr@hotmail.com>,
> King Neptune  <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Gregory Weston proclaimed 9/13/03 7:19 AM:remembering "the day of black
>> fate.."
>> 
>>> ] The DMCA explicitly grants copyright holders the right to issue
>>> ] subpoenas without proving anything to a judge.
>> 
>> for one thing....for a subpoena to be served - you must have
>> a court case already slated - which means that prior to that
>> you must have a 'court hearing' an some level of "judge" to which
>> *proof of good cause* must be submitted BEFORE proceeding.
> 
> Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

I'm not talking about "clearance to search ISP records".
To subpoena your ass into a court of law - is what the deal is.

They're not subpoenaing 'YOU' - they're going for *anyone's records*.
File transfer records.. period. --They're LQQKING for "evidence"
the 'Subpoena' they have employed is nothing more than a lever
annd nothing different than a "search warrant".

A violation/offense will have to be found BEFORE charges & fines
are leveled at anyone.  Like i said .. DUE PROCESS.
w
K

0
King
9/16/2003 12:07:03 AM
In article <BB8BBE57.BA68%hopestarrr@hotmail.com>,
 King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> wrote:

> They're not subpoenaing 'YOU' - they're going for *anyone's records*.
> File transfer records.. period. --They're LQQKING for "evidence"
> the 'Subpoena' they have employed is nothing more than a lever
> annd nothing different than a "search warrant".

They have no need for a search warrant. And they're not going after file 
transfer records. They don't need to. They have all the evidence they want. 
They just open up Kazaa and see who's offering shitloads of mp3's to the 
public. This is trivial to do; anyone can do it. They obtain the IP 
address, identify the ISP and bingo! Subpoena the ISP for the identity 
behind the IP.
0
The
9/16/2003 2:39:25 AM
The World Wide Wade proclaimed 9/15/03 9:39 PM:

> In article <BB8BBE57.BA68%hopestarrr@hotmail.com>,
> King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> They're not subpoenaing 'YOU' - they're going for *anyone's records*.
>> File transfer records.. period. --They're LQQKING for "evidence"
>> the 'Subpoena' they have employed is nothing more than a lever
>> annd nothing different than a "search warrant".
> 
> They have no need for a search warrant. And they're not going after file
> transfer records. They don't need to. They have all the evidence they want.
> They just open up Kazaa and see who's offering shitloads of mp3's to the
> public. This is trivial to do; anyone can do it. They obtain the IP
> address, identify the ISP and bingo! Subpoena the ISP for the identity
> behind the IP.

Whether they obtain their leads in that way or by any other means
the likes of which i have already described fully also - they are
LQQking for "evidence of a crime".
Now! -- let me break that down for you so you wil understand:
"..evidence of a crime"- precisely what's NEEDED
as "proof of good cause" to obtain a Judge's approved subpoena.
A subpoena in conjunction with the sole purpose to force the ISP
to reveal "their client anonymity" by producing a "client list".
They will have to doubly verify the "client's IP address" from
the ISP record as IP numbers can also be faked.
  But no matter what - all that *due process* has to take place
before anyone get's charged by anybody - including the RIAA.
w


0
King
9/16/2003 10:30:53 AM
The World Wide Wade proclaimed 9/15/03 9:39 PM:

> In article <BB8BBE57.BA68%hopestarrr@hotmail.com>,
> King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> They're not subpoenaing 'YOU' - they're going for *anyone's records*.
>> File transfer records.. period. --They're LQQKING for "evidence"
>> the 'Subpoena' they have employed is nothing more than a lever
>> annd nothing different than a "search warrant".
> 
> They have no need for a search warrant. And they're not going after file
> transfer records. They don't need to. They have all the evidence they want.
> They just open up Kazaa and see who's offering shitloads of mp3's to the
> public. This is trivial to do; anyone can do it. They obtain the IP
> address, identify the ISP and bingo! Subpoena the ISP for the identity
> behind the IP.

And to clearify my previous follow-up. You make a good point
that "some info" can simply be had by opening a Kazaa/Napster client
and jotting down IP numbers. Yes.!. .Agreed... However, that isn't
nessessarily going to be enough.. conclusive..nor even accurate
to establish the identity of the "unknown offender" for there are
many anonymous terminals abounding from Libraries..to nearly any
School or Institution you can think of.  Also, there is the question
of people with "switching IP numbers" such as those that change
with every new connection as with Cable/wideband and DHCP protocal.
  You don't need to be a Guru to know that the subpoena they refer to
is eventually going to have to show certain proof the IP info is
beyond doubt the exact individuals - that's where the ISP will
have to turn over the"transfer records belonging to the identified party".
If they are only going by what they get from a Napster-based client
it's at the very least - a weak case for charging anyone.
  Ofcourse.. that's never stopped the govt from charging people
nor has outright innocense  ; )

Cheers
w
K

0
King
9/16/2003 11:08:26 AM

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, King Neptune wrote:

> The World Wide Wade proclaimed 9/15/03 9:39 PM:
>
> > In article <BB8BBE57.BA68%hopestarrr@hotmail.com>,
> > King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> They're not subpoenaing 'YOU' - they're going for *anyone's records*.
> >> File transfer records.. period. --They're LQQKING for "evidence"
> >> the 'Subpoena' they have employed is nothing more than a lever
> >> annd nothing different than a "search warrant".
> >
> > They have no need for a search warrant. And they're not going after file
> > transfer records. They don't need to. They have all the evidence they want.
> > They just open up Kazaa and see who's offering shitloads of mp3's to the
> > public. This is trivial to do; anyone can do it. They obtain the IP
> > address, identify the ISP and bingo! Subpoena the ISP for the identity
> > behind the IP.
>
> And to clearify my previous follow-up. You make a good point
> that "some info" can simply be had by opening a Kazaa/Napster client
> and jotting down IP numbers. Yes.!. .Agreed... However, that isn't
> nessessarily going to be enough.. conclusive..nor even accurate
> to establish the identity of the "unknown offender" for there are
> many anonymous terminals abounding from Libraries..to nearly any

But nobody's (or at least very few) are running P2P software from public
terminals, most of which are locked to prevent various users from
installing anything on them.  Anyone who's doing some serious 'making
available of hundreds of mp3's using p2p' is about 99% likely to be doing
it from their own computer.

> School or Institution you can think of.  Also, there is the question
> of people with "switching IP numbers" such as those that change
> with every new connection as with Cable/wideband and DHCP protocal.

yea, DHCP is the more likely trouble spot for IDing IP numbers, but even
then, an ISP ought to have some record of who had a particular IP address
on a particular date...and just to note, I use DHCP and my IP address
hardly ever changes.

>   You don't need to be a Guru to know that the subpoena they refer to
> is eventually going to have to show certain proof the IP info is
> beyond doubt the exact individuals - that's where the ISP will
> have to turn over the"transfer records belonging to the identified party".
> If they are only going by what they get from a Napster-based client
> it's at the very least - a weak case for charging anyone.

something tells me they aren't going about this half-assed.


0
Expletive
9/16/2003 2:44:19 PM
King Neptune wrote:n
> many anonymous terminals abounding from Libraries..to nearly any
> School or Institution you can think of.  Also, there is the question

Libraries and businesses and public schools typically disable
things like Kazaa.  Universities however typically allow
anything at all.

> of people with "switching IP numbers" such as those that change
> with every new connection as with Cable/wideband and DHCP protocal.

Many DHCP providers log who was on a particular
address at a particular time.  Some of them however
have nobody with a clue how to look it up.

-- 
Wes Groleau
    ------
    "The reason most women would rather have beauty than brains is
     they know that most men can see better than they can think."
                                -- James Dobson

0
Wes
9/16/2003 3:33:33 PM
In article <BB8BBE57.BA68%hopestarrr@hotmail.com>,
King Neptune  <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Matthew Russotto proclaimed 9/15/03 1:45 PM:
>
>> In article <BB8899AC.B7AF%hopestarrr@hotmail.com>,
>> King Neptune  <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Gregory Weston proclaimed 9/13/03 7:19 AM:remembering "the day of black
>>> fate.."
>>> 
>>>> ] The DMCA explicitly grants copyright holders the right to issue
>>>> ] subpoenas without proving anything to a judge.
>>> 
>>> for one thing....for a subpoena to be served - you must have
>>> a court case already slated - which means that prior to that
>>> you must have a 'court hearing' an some level of "judge" to which
>>> *proof of good cause* must be submitted BEFORE proceeding.
>> 
>> Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
>
>I'm not talking about "clearance to search ISP records".
>To subpoena your ass into a court of law - is what the deal is.

Actually, if they're bringing you in to answer to the court, that's a
"summons".  If you were to be a witness, they might issue a subpoena.

>They're not subpoenaing 'YOU' - they're going for *anyone's records*.
>File transfer records.. period. 

Wrong again.  What they are subpoenaing is the records of the IDENTITY
of a specific user.
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                            mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."  But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of 
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
0
russotto
9/16/2003 3:35:21 PM
In article <BB8C508C.BADB%hopestarrr@hotmail.com>,
King Neptune  <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Whether they obtain their leads in that way or by any other means
>the likes of which i have already described fully also - they are
>LQQking for "evidence of a crime".
>Now! -- let me break that down for you so you wil understand:
>"..evidence of a crime"- precisely what's NEEDED
>as "proof of good cause" to obtain a Judge's approved subpoena.

Let me type slower so you can understand:

There is no question of "evidence of a crime".  This is a civil
process, not a criminal one.

There is no judge involved. The subpoena is issued by the clerk of the
court.
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                            mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."  But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of 
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
0
russotto
9/16/2003 3:41:15 PM
Matthew Russotto proclaimed 9/16/03 10:41 AM:

> In article <BB8C508C.BADB%hopestarrr@hotmail.com>,
>> King Neptune  wrote:
>> 
>> Whether they obtain their leads in that way or by any other means
>> the likes of which i have already described fully also - they are
>> LQQking for "evidence of a crime".
>> Now! -- let me break that down for you so you wil understand:
>> "..evidence of a crime"- precisely what's NEEDED
>> as "proof of good cause" to obtain a Judge's approved subpoena.
> 
> Let me type slower so you can understand:
HAA!.. :0)

> There is no question of "evidence of a crime".  This is a civil
> process, not a criminal one.

Have you lost your senses my friend.? -- whether 'civil or criminal'
there MUST be an "offense/crime" that the plantiff must provide & prove.
That's as basic as it gets - and it's no different in these cases either.

Regards..
w
K

> There is no judge involved. The subpoena is issued by the clerk of the
> court.

0
King
9/16/2003 4:52:07 PM
In article <BB8CA9E7.BB0F%hopestarrr@hotmail.com>, King Neptune wrote:
> Matthew Russotto proclaimed 9/16/03 10:41 AM:
> 
>> There is no question of "evidence of a crime".  This is a civil
>> process, not a criminal one.
> 
> Have you lost your senses my friend.? -- whether 'civil or criminal'
> there MUST be an "offense/crime" that the plantiff must provide & prove.
> That's as basic as it gets - and it's no different in these cases either.

If you have not already done so take a look at:

http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/howto-notgetsued.php

The information posted there does not fully resolve this dispute
but it outlines the basic process. The RIAA use software to scan
publically available P2P directories and identify the ISP of each
"offending" user. Then, using the DMCA they subpoena the ISP to
identify the user.

They get the subpoena based on evidence which is publically
available on the Internet, but as to who actually issues the
subpoena and the strength of evidence required I have no idea.
On the other hand, given the ammount of money the RIAA are
spending on lawyers they can probably get away with murder.

Ian Gregory
Systems and Applications Manager
Learning and Information Services
University of Hertfordshire
0
Ian
9/16/2003 5:34:50 PM
I'm jumping in a bit late here. But I think one thing should be
remembered. To my mind, the problem arises because 'end users' like
the most of us here, now have tools at our fingertips (quite
literally), which just were not available or even imaginable at the
time the original copyright legislation was written. And anyone who
had the means to store, manipulate, or distribute copyrighted
material, would have been under quite severe contractual limitations
as what he/she could do with this material. Now, _all_ of us
potentially have small warehouses on our desks (50 gigs of HD space is
roughly equivalent to 1200 LPs), can cut and mix music, and can act as
global distributors of such works. We have so much more technology at
our disposition, than even just ten years ago. Anyone with our
capabilities cleary would not be left to do what s/he pleased with
copyrighted material, and quite rightly so. This is the fundamental
quagmire. Potentially, we are all small record shops, or at least
there is no a priori way of distinguishing us from one. Or bookshops,
or art galleries. I think we should first acknowledge this, and then
see how end users can still retain their rights, even with these
expanded technological capabilities.
0
s
9/16/2003 6:21:58 PM
>> > Matthew Russotto proclaimed 9/16/03 10:41 AM:
>>> There is no question of "evidence of a crime".  This is a civil
>>> process, not a criminal one.
>> King Neptune wrote:
>> Have you lost your senses my friend.? -- whether 'civil or criminal'
>> there MUST be an "offense/crime" that the plantiff must provide & prove.
>> That's as basic as it gets - and it's no different in these cases either.
> Ian Gregory proclaimed 9/16/03 12:34 PM:
> If you have not already done so take a look at:
Why?.. i don't need to look at any page to know
you cannot be sued/charged/fined/made to pay penalties without
someone asserting that a *crime* has been committed.
That's what i'm simply explaining..and "due process" follows. period.

This legal affair is firmly embedded on a privacy issue.
"..Are Napster-based *members* shareing or stealing when trading
their 'private personal data' amongst themselves..?".
What the DMCA allows is for entities like RIAA to force disclosure
of *member privacy* asserting that Naster-based clients
are not 'private trading clubs'.
Verizon..the ISP company challenging to the supreme court argues
that the RIAA subpoena and the DCMA is an *invasion of privacy*.
It's the exact same argument applied to the Napster-based clients
in that you must 'register to become a member of the trading club'.
A member in a "private trading club" since you are required to register.
  Spin that all together with far reaching further implications
such as all the way to USENET NGs - specifically *binary NGs*
where copyrighted data has been swapping hands
trillions of times a day for years and years - and "privacy is at the base".

I'm betting 6/2+even that the supreme court will render a decision
that deems NOTHING is *private* and cites everyone
as 'copyright criminals' that has ever downloaded an MP3 or JPEG.

Cheers,
w
K
and 

 
> http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/howto-notgetsued.php
> 
> The information posted there does not fully resolve this dispute
> but it outlines the basic process. The RIAA use software to scan
> publically available P2P directories and identify the ISP of each
> "offending" user. Then, using the DMCA they subpoena the ISP to
> identify the user.
> 
> They get the subpoena based on evidence which is publically
> available on the Internet, but as to who actually issues the
> subpoena and the strength of evidence required I have no idea.
> On the other hand, given the ammount of money the RIAA are
> spending on lawyers they can probably get away with murder.
> 
> Ian Gregory
> Systems and Applications Manager
> Learning and Information Services
> University of Hertfordshire

0
9/16/2003 7:36:43 PM
Thomas Reed <thomasareed@dont.spam.me> wrote in message news:<110920031618216209%thomasareed@dont.spam.me>...
> In article <no.spam-0B9B56.14221511092003@news.verizon.net>, Al
> <no.spam@here.com> wrote:
> 
> > Maybe it's time for a boycott of the music industry. What say?
> 
> Okay, this is going way OT, but...
> 
> I wonder where we would be today if not for apps like Napster,
> LimeWire, etc.  Whatever the advocates of these programs pretend, they
> exist for one purpose and one purpose only -- to steal music.  Oh,
> yeah, you can call it sharing...  and that mugger is just borrowing
> your wallet!

Stealing is when you take something from someone who is unwilling to
part with it. If you take something from someone they no longer have
it and it is lost. People who share through P2P aren't loosing
anything as they still have what they started out with. It's like
someone baking up two chocolate cakes and offering the second one to
anyone who'll give them a box of doughnuts for it. No one looses
anything and everyone is happy except the people at Betty Crocker who
whine and complain that the recipe is theirs and they must be paid.
Typical corporate manipulative mentality.

> 
> I don't much care for the policies of the music industry, but they
> don't exist in a vacuum.  Those policies might not exist if folks
> weren't so eager to steal music.  It must be incredibly frustrating for
> the recording industry, knowing that there's absolutely no reason --
> other than ethics, which always seem to be in short supply -- for
> people to buy music anymore.  So sure, let's boycott them right out of
> existance, and then we'll see how happy we are with no more
> commercial-quality music.

Personally I wouldn't mind conducting a couple of experiments to see
if a RIAA weasel could exist in a vacuum but then I'm easily
entertained. Not so easily entertained that I would consider spending
fifty cents Canadian on any of the trite garbage being promoted and
marketed by the recording industry these days though. If the music
industry was loosing money (which it isn't � intentionally inaccurate
bookkeeping making huge profits look like losses because of overly
optimistic projected sales figures, is not the same as loosing money)
it's because people are realizing their product isn't worth what
they're demanding. The crap is overpriced, boring and thoroughly
disposable.

> 
> Instead, how about supporting the music industry through channels that
> you approve.  For example, I highly approve of the iTunes store.  Apple
> had to fight and make compromises to get the music industry to agree to
> it, and now that it's there, let's not give the music industry reason
> to regret the decision!  If they can be made to see that there are ways
> to make money without treating all customers as criminals, maybe
> they'll change their ways.  (A little, anyway -- I don't know that I
> have *that* much faith in them.)

Yeah well� I'm not sure anyone is too concerned about what you
"approve" of. Corporate weasels make huge profits for amoral and
sociopathic artificial personalities (the corporations themselves) at
the expense of real people (little girls no less) who wind up targeted
by a swaggering bully. I don't "approve" of that mindset and wouldn't
shed a tear if the entire music industry went tits up. It's obscenely
corrupt and in serious need of reformatting.

Dinsdale
0
hecanshoutdonthearyo
9/16/2003 7:37:13 PM
In article <5a27820d.0309161137.31e461f7@posting.google.com>,
 hecanshoutdonthearyou@yahoo.com (Dinsdale) wrote:

> Thomas Reed <thomasareed@dont.spam.me> wrote in message 
> news:<110920031618216209%thomasareed@dont.spam.me>...
>
> > I wonder where we would be today if not for apps like Napster,
> > LimeWire, etc.  Whatever the advocates of these programs pretend, they
> > exist for one purpose and one purpose only -- to steal music.  Oh,
> > yeah, you can call it sharing...  and that mugger is just borrowing
> > your wallet!
> 
> Stealing is when you take something from someone who is unwilling to
> part with it. If you take something from someone they no longer have
> it and it is lost. People who share through P2P aren't loosing
> anything as they still have what they started out with.

That's right. Which means stealing is the wrong term. But it's also 
wrong to let a debate over IP get sidetracked by someone's use of a 
common but incorrect word. This is not about theft. It's about violation 
of intellectual property rights.


> Yeah well I'm not sure anyone is too concerned about what you
> "approve" of. Corporate weasels make huge profits for amoral and
> sociopathic artificial personalities (the corporations themselves) at
> the expense of real people (little girls no less) 

Yes. Little honors student girls who made an active effort to do 
something that happens to have been arguably illegal.

G
0
Gregory
9/16/2003 10:11:45 PM
In comp.sys.mac.system Keeper of the Purple Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:
> Hardly a day goes by these days when we don't hear about new lawsuits
> filed by the RIAA.  I know they're targeting people who use P2P
> software (like Kazaa) and who download and/or share MP3's illegally. 
> But what if I DON'T do any of these things?  

> I don't have P2P software - never used it at all, never will.  I don't
> download MP3's, and I don't *share* them - illegally or otherwise.  (I
> do have MP3's on my computer and listen to them via iTunes, but these
> are all ripped from CDs THAT I OWN and that I BOUGHT LEGALLY - and
> again, these are not shared, nobody downloads them from my computer)

> Am I still a target?  As I said, I have no sharing of any kind.  I
> don't download either.

Only if you bring your Mac over to the RIAA's legal council and ask
them to sue you. They have to find the copies first. Don't share your
copied music and the RIAA's representatives have no way to know you
have created copies of music.

0
stan
9/17/2003 5:10:17 PM
In article <gwestonREMOVE-FC09FB.18114316092003@netnews.attbi.com>,
Gregory Weston  <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
>In article <5a27820d.0309161137.31e461f7@posting.google.com>,
> hecanshoutdonthearyou@yahoo.com (Dinsdale) wrote:
>
>> Thomas Reed <thomasareed@dont.spam.me> wrote in message 
>> news:<110920031618216209%thomasareed@dont.spam.me>...
>>
>> > I wonder where we would be today if not for apps like Napster,
>> > LimeWire, etc.  Whatever the advocates of these programs pretend, they
>> > exist for one purpose and one purpose only -- to steal music.  Oh,
>> > yeah, you can call it sharing...  and that mugger is just borrowing
>> > your wallet!
>> 
>> Stealing is when you take something from someone who is unwilling to
>> part with it. If you take something from someone they no longer have
>> it and it is lost. People who share through P2P aren't loosing
>> anything as they still have what they started out with.
>
>That's right. Which means stealing is the wrong term. But it's also 
>wrong to let a debate over IP get sidetracked by someone's use of a 
>common but incorrect word. This is not about theft. It's about violation 
>of intellectual property rights.

If the RIAA et al insist on characterizing it as "theft" and
"stealing", people will keep calling them on it.  They don't use those
terms by mistake; they use them as a propaganda ploy.  It keeps people from
questioning whether or not the action is actually wrong in the first
place, or merely violates a law they and their fellow travellers
bought and paid for.
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                            mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."  But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of 
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
0
russotto
9/17/2003 6:45:24 PM
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) writes:

> In article <gwestonREMOVE-FC09FB.18114316092003@netnews.attbi.com>,
> Gregory Weston  <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
[...]
> >That's right. Which means stealing is the wrong term. But it's also 
> >wrong to let a debate over IP get sidetracked by someone's use of a 
> >common but incorrect word. This is not about theft. It's about violation 
> >of intellectual property rights.
> 
> If the RIAA et al insist on characterizing it as "theft" and
> "stealing", people will keep calling them on it.  They don't use those
> terms by mistake; they use them as a propaganda ploy.  It keeps people from
> questioning whether or not the action is actually wrong in the first
> place, or merely violates a law they and their fellow travellers
> bought and paid for.

dictionary.com's first definition for stealing: [from American Heritage
Dictionary]

  1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

That seems applicable -- it *is* taken without right or permission.
You could attack the definition on the "property" claim, but IP is
legally property in most countries.

The Webster's Revised Unabridged definition of theft doesn't seem to
apply:

  1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically the felonious taking and
  removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful
  owner of the same; larceny.

  Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's
  consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the
  property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former
  position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete
  posession of the thief.

Filesharing doesn't seem to fit the (legal?) definition of theft.  It
does fit the common usage of stealing quite nicely -- "Don't steal
music" is perfectly understandable.  For common (not legal) usage,
piracy is also an appropriate, understandable word.

  2. The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented
  material.

Personally, I think the appropriate term for copyright infringers would
be "leech" or "freeloader".  The dictionary definitions don't quite
fit, but it conjures up all the right images for those who "share"
the fruit of somebody else's labors.
-- 
Dale J. Stephenson
dalestephenson@mac.com
3/27/87 -- Ed Hearn for David Cone.  12/20/02 -- Millwood for Estrada
Schuerholz has finally topped himself.
0
dalestephenson
9/17/2003 7:19:16 PM
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:18:10 -0400, Thomas Reed wrote
(in message <110920031618216209%thomasareed@dont.spam.me>):

> I wonder where we would be today if not for apps like Napster, 
> LimeWire, etc.  Whatever the advocates of these programs pretend, they 
> exist for one purpose and one purpose only -- to steal music. 

In some places sharing music and downloading it is not illegal. Those 
places need software like that.

I personally download music with clear conscience and without 
hesitation. If Limewire, Poisoned or other music sharing software didn't 
exist then I wouldn't be able to do something legal where I live.

The US is not representative of the whole world.

-- 
J Brady

0
Jonathan
9/17/2003 8:01:25 PM
Dale J. Stephenson proclaimed 9/17/03 2:19 PM:

> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) writes:
> 
>> In article <gwestonREMOVE-FC09FB.18114316092003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>> Gregory Weston  <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
> [...]
>>> That's right. Which means stealing is the wrong term. But it's also
>>> wrong to let a debate over IP get sidetracked by someone's use of a
>>> common but incorrect word. This is not about theft. It's about violation
>>> of intellectual property rights.
>> 
>> If the RIAA et al insist on characterizing it as "theft" and
>> "stealing", people will keep calling them on it.  They don't use those
>> terms by mistake; they use them as a propaganda ploy.  It keeps people from
>> questioning whether or not the action is actually wrong in the first
>> place, or merely violates a law they and their fellow travellers
>> bought and paid for.
> 
> dictionary.com's first definition for stealing: [from American Heritage
> Dictionary]
> 
> 1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
> 
> That seems applicable -- it *is* taken without right or permission.
> You could attack the definition on the "property" claim, but IP is
> legally property in most countries.
> 
> The Webster's Revised Unabridged definition of theft doesn't seem to
> apply:
> 
> 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically the felonious taking and
> removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful
> owner of the same; larceny.
> 
> Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's
> consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the
> property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former
> position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete
> posession of the thief.
> 
> Filesharing doesn't seem to fit the (legal?) definition of theft.  It
> does fit the common usage of stealing quite nicely -- "Don't steal
> music" is perfectly understandable.  For common (not legal) usage,
> piracy is also an appropriate, understandable word.
> 
> 2. The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented
> material.
> 
> Personally, I think the appropriate term for copyright infringers would
> be "leech" or "freeloader".  The dictionary definitions don't quite
> fit, but it conjures up all the right images for those who "share"
> the fruit of somebody else's labors.

Now you've gone and done it - you've marched into areas of characterization
that paint anyone downloading MP3's of commercially available music
as "less than honest people" and layers worse to out & out *villians*.
Well aren't you PROUD of yourself.!!

Your whole speach makes me sick...and that's pretty bad
as i am also a lifelong musician/performer myself with copyrights and all.
But to take the slant you take - spin the curve on that spit ball is tripe.
My mother would call it.." GUFF..". . indeed.

People use P2P because it's convienient.!!
People use P2P because it's a chance to 'pre-view"- *pre-hear*.!!
People use P2P because it's the best damn search engine on the planet.!!
People use P2P because it's right-on..Mutha-F*ckin PAYBACK.!!!
REMEMBER!!  -- P2P was here LONGGGGG BEFORE the Metalica bitched.
Goddamn C*nts they are.!! -- Metallica-- BLE-E-ECKKKK.!!!..spit--tOOEY!!!

Have a little respect - this internet
is THE PEOPLES INTERNET.. .it's OUR creation
and so are MP3's and Mov's.. and all the rest - SCREW the RIAA.!!

That said.?.. Peace Friend ; )
w
K






0
King
9/17/2003 8:25:09 PM
In article <5a27820d.0309161137.31e461f7@posting.google.com>, Dinsdale
<hecanshoutdonthearyou@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Thomas Reed <thomasareed@dont.spam.me> wrote in message
> news:<110920031618216209%thomasareed@dont.spam.me>...
> > In article <no.spam-0B9B56.14221511092003@news.verizon.net>, Al
> > <no.spam@here.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Maybe it's time for a boycott of the music industry. What say?
> > 
> > Okay, this is going way OT, but...
> > 
> > I wonder where we would be today if not for apps like Napster,
> > LimeWire, etc.  Whatever the advocates of these programs pretend, they
> > exist for one purpose and one purpose only -- to steal music.  Oh,
> > yeah, you can call it sharing...  and that mugger is just borrowing
> > your wallet!
> 
> Stealing is when you take something from someone who is unwilling to
> part with it. If you take something from someone they no longer have
> it and it is lost. People who share through P2P aren't loosing
> anything as they still have what they started out with. It's like
> someone baking up two chocolate cakes and offering the second one to
> anyone who'll give them a box of doughnuts for it. No one looses
> anything and everyone is happy except the people at Betty Crocker who
> whine and complain that the recipe is theirs and they must be paid.

If only people were using Kazaa to share their own cake.  But no, they
are sharing cake that belongs to someone else.

It's wrong to give away someone else's cake, especially after they
asked you not to by placing a nice little C-in-a-circle symbol on the
top.  And it's still wrong even if you know they'll never miss the cake
you take.  The fact that they won't miss it doesn't mean it magically
belongs to you.  In fact, there is nothing you can do that could make
the cake belong to you.  Cakes belong to the one who made them until
that person gives the cake to someone else, or until the government
decides that the maker has had enough opportunity to profit from the
cake and declare that the cake henceforth belongs to the public.

If you want to compare copyrighted music to baked goods, a better
analogy would be to the creators' "bread and butter."

Theft is when you take something that doesn't belong to you.  Theft is
not wrong because the owner no longer has what you took -- it's wrong
because it wasn't yours to take.  This remains true in copyright
violation, making it a category of theft.

-- 
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA                   <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

        When replying by e-mail, use plain text ONLY to make sure I read it.
        Due to spam and viruses, I filter all mail with HTML or attachments.
0
Jerry
9/17/2003 9:19:14 PM
King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> writes:

> Dale J. Stephenson proclaimed 9/17/03 2:19 PM:
[...]
> > Personally, I think the appropriate term for copyright infringers would
> > be "leech" or "freeloader".  The dictionary definitions don't quite
> > fit, but it conjures up all the right images for those who "share"
> > the fruit of somebody else's labors.
> 
> Now you've gone and done it - you've marched into areas of characterization
> that paint anyone downloading MP3's of commercially available music
> as "less than honest people" and layers worse to out & out *villians*.
> Well aren't you PROUD of yourself.!!
> 
If you took something somebody else made, against their permission, you're
doing something that is illegal at worst, and impolite at best.

> Your whole speach makes me sick...and that's pretty bad
> as i am also a lifelong musician/performer myself with copyrights and all.
> But to take the slant you take - spin the curve on that spit ball is tripe.
> My mother would call it.." GUFF..". . indeed.
> 
I'm not a lifelong musician or performer, but I have this little deal
going with them -- they make music, they make it available under certain
terms, and I abide by those terms or do without.  Not that hard.

I *do* write software for a living, partly closed source, and partly
open source.  I do have a vested interest in copyright, and I can see
no moral obligation to those who take and do not give.

> People use P2P because it's convienient.!!
> People use P2P because it's a chance to 'pre-view"- *pre-hear*.!!
> People use P2P because it's the best damn search engine on the planet.!!
> People use P2P because it's right-on..Mutha-F*ckin PAYBACK.!!!
> REMEMBER!!  -- P2P was here LONGGGGG BEFORE the Metalica bitched.
> Goddamn C*nts they are.!! -- Metallica-- BLE-E-ECKKKK.!!!..spit--tOOEY!!!
> 
Don't care for Metallica, myself.  If they don't want to share, why not
let them keep their cruddy music to themselves.

You missed "People use P2P because it's cheap."  It's hard to believe
P2P is more convenient and easier to search than iTunes, though P2P can
boast a wider selection and a "preview" longer than 30 seconds (albeit
often of lower quality, I'm told).

If the noble souls sharing music REALLY wanted to get back at the RIAA,
they'd stop distributing the RIAA's music.  Nothing would be better than
to share the music of musicians who *want* exposure via P2P, and buy
their albums instead of the RIAA's offerings.

But no, people (collectively) would rather just get the same RIAA songs
they already know from the radio for free.

> Have a little respect - this internet
> is THE PEOPLES INTERNET.. .it's OUR creation
> and so are MP3's and Mov's.. and all the rest - SCREW the RIAA.!!
> 
OUR creation?  What did you do to set up the miltary's, I mean the
"people's" internet?  I'll wager you had nothing technically to do
with the creation of the internet, file compression, or quicktime
formats.  And even if you're Al Gore in disguise, you did NOT create
the music you're "sharing".  And if file sharing is bad for the RIAA, it's
also bad for the songwriters not getting their mechanical royalties.
What did they do to deserve getting shafted?  Have a little respect.
-- 
Dale J. Stephenson
dalestephenson@mac.com
3/27/87 -- Ed Hearn for David Cone.  12/20/02 -- Millwood for Estrada
Schuerholz has finally topped himself.
0
dalestephenson
9/17/2003 9:50:54 PM
King Neptune  <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> There is no question of "evidence of a crime".  This is a civil
>> process, not a criminal one.
> 
> Have you lost your senses my friend.? -- whether 'civil or criminal'
> there MUST be an "offense/crime" that the plantiff must provide & prove.
> That's as basic as it gets - and it's no different in these cases either.

Yes, it is.  Try reading the law.  There is *NO JUDGE* involved in the
issuing of a subpoena -- it is automatic and handled by a court clerk.
Once they go after you, it is, for all intents and purposes, up to you
to prove your innocence.  Does this sound contrary to the fundamental
principles the US Government is based upon?  Good, it should -- but the
fact remains that it is US federal law, and if you don't like it, you
should contact your Representatives and try to do something about it.

-- 
Jeremy  |  jeremy@exit109.com
0
Jeremy
9/17/2003 10:16:06 PM
In article <1063836965.407311@ok-corral.gunslinger.net>,
 Jeremy <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:

> > Have you lost your senses my friend.? -- whether 'civil or criminal'
> > there MUST be an "offense/crime" that the plantiff must provide & prove.
> > That's as basic as it gets - and it's no different in these cases either.
> 
> Yes, it is.  Try reading the law.  There is *NO JUDGE* involved in the
> issuing of a subpoena -- it is automatic and handled by a court clerk.
> Once they go after you, it is, for all intents and purposes, up to you
> to prove your innocence.  Does this sound contrary to the fundamental
> principles the US Government is based upon?  Good, it should -- but the
> fact remains that it is US federal law, and if you don't like it, you
> should contact your Representatives and try to do something about it.

True.  But it's not really that big of a change from standard federal 
practice.  In other civil litigation, whenever you file a lawsuit in 
federal court, a litigant can issue a subpoena without the involvement 
of either a court clerk or a judge.  You just have to fill out a form, 
type in the case caption, fill in some blanks, describe what you want, 
and send it off.  It's up to the subpoenaed party to show the court 
why the subpoena is improper, not the requesting party.

For example, see
  <http://www.moed.uscourts.gov/forms/fillSubpoenaInACivilCase_ao88.pdf>
The "issuing officer" is the attorney issuing the subpoena.  The 
second page of the form lists the rights afforded those served with 
subpoenas.

Therefore, if not for this new law, the RIAA would have to file a 
"John Doe" lawsuit, and then they could subpoena Verizon or whoever 
trying to learn the identity of the John Doe named as the defendant in 
the lawsuit.  Honestly, I'm not certain that this expedited subpoena 
proceduer is a huge advantage, but there you go.  I suppose it enables 
the RIAA and other copyright holders to act more quickly in defense of 
their copyrights.

The same holds true in state litigation, at least in Missouri, where I 
practice.  The only difference in Missouri state court is that you 
need the clerk's signature on the subpoena.  To get that, you just 
pick up some blank subpoena forms that are sitting in the clerk's 
office and fill them out.

 - geoff

-- 
Visit http://PostingUp.net
All college basketball, no Andy Katz
0
Geoffrey
9/18/2003 12:41:54 AM
Geoffrey F. Green <gfg-usenet@stuebegreen.com> wrote:

> True.  But it's not really that big of a change from standard federal 
> practice.  In other civil litigation, whenever you file a lawsuit in 
> federal court, a litigant can issue a subpoena without the involvement 
> of either a court clerk or a judge.  You just have to fill out a form, 
> type in the case caption, fill in some blanks, describe what you want, 
> and send it off.  It's up to the subpoenaed party to show the court 
> why the subpoena is improper, not the requesting party.

True, but I can't help but think that the simple requirement to have a
suit underway "raises the bar", as it were, to prevent people from
abusing the automatic subpoena power who have no intention of ever
actually filing a suit, but instead just want to find out someone's
identity.

> Therefore, if not for this new law, the RIAA would have to file a 
> "John Doe" lawsuit, and then they could subpoena Verizon or whoever 
> trying to learn the identity of the John Doe named as the defendant in 
> the lawsuit.  Honestly, I'm not certain that this expedited subpoena 
> proceduer is a huge advantage, but there you go.  I suppose it enables 
> the RIAA and other copyright holders to act more quickly in defense of 
> their copyrights.

Yes, and that's part of the point -- because the damage caused by a
violation can occur so quickly, it makes sense to expedite the process
a bit.  However, I feel that it does cross the line somewhat.

-- 
Jeremy  |  jeremy@exit109.com
0
Jeremy
9/18/2003 1:05:02 AM
In article <m3oexjdxzf.fsf@mac.com>,
Dale J. Stephenson <dalestephenson@mac.com> wrote:
>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) writes:
>
>> In article <gwestonREMOVE-FC09FB.18114316092003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>> Gregory Weston  <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
>[...]
>> >That's right. Which means stealing is the wrong term. But it's also 
>> >wrong to let a debate over IP get sidetracked by someone's use of a 
>> >common but incorrect word. This is not about theft. It's about violation 
>> >of intellectual property rights.
>> 
>> If the RIAA et al insist on characterizing it as "theft" and
>> "stealing", people will keep calling them on it.  They don't use those
>> terms by mistake; they use them as a propaganda ploy.  It keeps people from
>> questioning whether or not the action is actually wrong in the first
>> place, or merely violates a law they and their fellow travellers
>> bought and paid for.
>
>dictionary.com's first definition for stealing: [from American Heritage
>Dictionary]
>
>  1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
>
>That seems applicable -- it *is* taken without right or permission.
>You could attack the definition on the "property" claim, but IP is
>legally property in most countries.

There's no taking.  When there is a taking, one person is deprived of
something while someone else gains it.  It is possible to take
"intellectual property", but only by fraud.  Copyright infringement
won't do it.
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                            mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."  But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of 
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
0
russotto
9/18/2003 2:08:35 AM
my last diggs on this set..onward ;.)
>Dale J. Stephenson proclaimed 9/17/03 4:50 PM:

> King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Dale J. Stephenson proclaimed 9/17/03 2:19 PM:
> [...]
>>> Personally, I think the appropriate term for copyright infringers would
>>> be "leech" or "freeloader".  The dictionary definitions don't quite
>>> fit, but it conjures up all the right images for those who "share"
>>> the fruit of somebody else's labors.
>> 
>> Now you've gone and done it - you've marched into areas of characterization
>> that paint anyone downloading MP3's of commercially available music
>> as "less than honest people" and layers worse to out & out *villians*.
>> Well aren't you PROUD of yourself.!!
>> 
> If you took something somebody else made, against their permission, you're
> doing something that is illegal at worst, and impolite at best.

Think everyone here would do much better than to continue
trying to make "carpet bagging comparrisons & allusions".
The bias's displayed in this thread have run the gamut
and originated from RIAA insiders - to everyday people like me.
  You wanna call me a thief.?? -- I'll call you Thief too.
I will explain ahead.

> 
>> Your whole speach makes me sick...and that's pretty bad
>> as i am also a lifelong musician/performer myself with copyrights and all.
>> But to take the slant you take - spin the curve on that spit ball is tripe.
>> My mother would call it.." GUFF..". . indeed.
>> 
> I'm not a lifelong musician or performer, but I have this little deal
> going with them -- they make music, they make it available under certain
> terms, and I abide by those terms or do without.  Not that hard.

Right here is a place where you've stepped in the wrong end of the pool.
You've jumped in waters way over your head..and don't even know it.
Here's why some of these 'certain circumstances' you refer to validates
the P2P disemination of MP3's causing your argument to disintegrate.
  For one.. the songs are FREELY played on radio/televison..they are
played/STREAMED/DUPLICATED-**FREE** to the MASS PUBLIC..
and done so TO MILLIONS & MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AT ONE TIME.!!
Now make a mental note of this*- RADIO & TV.."DO NOT"require membership.
FREE.!! -- to the MASSES.!!!.... in the *PUBLIC DOMAIN* - E V E R Y D A Y!!
  The construction of these already FREELY AIRED SONGS to MP3's
is nothing more than what has ALREADY been done..and with most songs
it's been done 1000's & 1000's of times for years & years - FREE.
There's a damn good reason for that! -cause corporate white collar worms
that have controlled the Music industry by legal & finacial club & armor
know that "".. you have to let the people have the music FREELY FIRST.."'
""FREELY ---- before anyone will BUY - PUCHASE - SPEND MOOLA.."'

The corporate worms spoken about are none other than the very people
behind the RIAA and the all out charge attack upon P2P and anyone
that carries an iPOD.  You see..because it's the "greedy corporate mongers"
that are the THEIVING BASTARDS --and have ben ALL ALONG.

Don't be shocked at my words..nor take them lightly please.??
You don't know me(Defi) or my songs.. But you do know luminaries
and other genuine stars..such as the likes of Roger McGuin of 'BYRDS'etc.
He and others will tell you the same story.. and they likemyself, will
tell you that NOW - because of the internet & MP3's - BIG BROTHER's upset!
BIG BROTHER in this case in the shoes of the Corp Music Companies.
They've been "surgically removed" from the equation - OH YEAH BABY!!!!

Pretty soon.. there will great musicians like Roger Mcguin Sting etc.,.that
will be dealing their own albums & MP3's -- DIRECT -- *NO CORP WORMS*.

That's why its " pay back "...let alone for the 20 - 40 years of getting
screwed with inferior cassettes bodies..warped vinyl LP's..& defective CDs.
Cheap garbage constuction..done by slaves in a 3rd world sweatshop
then sold at SKY ROCKET PRICES.!!!--$20.00 LP's --$40.00 CD's!!!
all so the greedy *NON-creative..NON-musician..LEACHES* can continue
to hold starving musicians and fans by the monetary balls.

All the LABELS can rot in MP3 hell - "the music belongs to the people" .

I can't take credit for that - but i can quote it.!.
Cheers
w
K

> 
> I *do* write software for a living, partly closed source, and partly
> open source.  I do have a vested interest in copyright, and I can see
> no moral obligation to those who take and do not give.
> 
>> People use P2P because it's convienient.!!
>> People use P2P because it's a chance to 'pre-view"- *pre-hear*.!!
>> People use P2P because it's the best damn search engine on the planet.!!
>> People use P2P because it's right-on..Mutha-F*ckin PAYBACK.!!!
>> REMEMBER!!  -- P2P was here LONGGGGG BEFORE the Metalica bitched.
>> Goddamn C*nts they are.!! -- Metallica-- BLE-E-ECKKKK.!!!..spit--tOOEY!!!
>> 
> Don't care for Metallica, myself.  If they don't want to share, why not
> let them keep their cruddy music to themselves.
> 
> You missed "People use P2P because it's cheap."  It's hard to believe
> P2P is more convenient and easier to search than iTunes, though P2P can
> boast a wider selection and a "preview" longer than 30 seconds (albeit
> often of lower quality, I'm told).
> 
> If the noble souls sharing music REALLY wanted to get back at the RIAA,
> they'd stop distributing the RIAA's music.  Nothing would be better than
> to share the music of musicians who *want* exposure via P2P, and buy
> their albums instead of the RIAA's offerings.
> 
> But no, people (collectively) would rather just get the same RIAA songs
> they already know from the radio for free.
> 
>> Have a little respect - this internet
>> is THE PEOPLES INTERNET.. .it's OUR creation
>> and so are MP3's and Mov's.. and all the rest - SCREW the RIAA.!!
>> 
> OUR creation?  What did you do to set up the miltary's, I mean the
> "people's" internet?  I'll wager you had nothing technically to do
> with the creation of the internet, file compression, or quicktime
> formats.  And even if you're Al Gore in disguise, you did NOT create
> the music you're "sharing".  And if file sharing is bad for the RIAA, it's
> also bad for the songwriters not getting their mechanical royalties.
> What did they do to deserve getting shafted?  Have a little respect.

0
King
9/18/2003 5:19:05 AM
In article <BB8EAA79.BC27%hopestarrr@hotmail.com>,
 King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> wrote:

>   For one.. the songs are FREELY played on radio/televison..

No, they aren't. They right to play is paid for by the broadcasters. If 
you happen to be listening at the right time, you can hear and even 
record it, but you'll end up with something much lower quality than an 
MP3, and often corrupted by DJ chatter or the like.

> they are
> played/STREAMED/DUPLICATED-**FREE** to the MASS PUBLIC..
> and done so TO MILLIONS & MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AT ONE TIME.!!
> Now make a mental note of this*- RADIO & TV.."DO NOT"require membership.
> FREE.!! -- to the MASSES.!!!.... in the *PUBLIC DOMAIN* - E V E R Y D A Y!!

In what world does performance count as release to the public domain?
0
Gregory
9/18/2003 11:35:28 AM
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) writes:

> In article <m3oexjdxzf.fsf@mac.com>,
> Dale J. Stephenson <dalestephenson@mac.com> wrote:
[...]
> >dictionary.com's first definition for stealing: [from American Heritage
> >Dictionary]
> >
> >  1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
> >
> >That seems applicable -- it *is* taken without right or permission.
> >You could attack the definition on the "property" claim, but IP is
> >legally property in most countries.
> 
> There's no taking.  When there is a taking, one person is deprived of
> something while someone else gains it.  It is possible to take
> "intellectual property", but only by fraud.  Copyright infringement
> won't do it.

First definition of take, from the same source:

  1.  To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice.

Even though the original owner didn't lose possession, the taker definitely
did get it.

Copyright infringement doesn't meet the legal definition of theft, but for
common usage steal works well.  When Apple put "Don't Steal Music" stickers
on their iPods, they confused no one who did not wish to be confused.
-- 
Dale J. Stephenson
dalestephenson@mac.com
3/27/87 -- Ed Hearn for David Cone.  12/20/02 -- Millwood for Estrada
Schuerholz has finally topped himself.
0
dalestephenson
9/18/2003 2:41:28 PM
King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> writes:

> my last diggs on this set..onward ;.)
> >Dale J. Stephenson proclaimed 9/17/03 4:50 PM:
> 
[...]
> > If you took something somebody else made, against their permission, you're
> > doing something that is illegal at worst, and impolite at best.
> 
> Think everyone here would do much better than to continue
> trying to make "carpet bagging comparrisons & allusions".
> The bias's displayed in this thread have run the gamut
> and originated from RIAA insiders - to everyday people like me.
>   You wanna call me a thief.?? -- I'll call you Thief too.

I want to call you a leech.  I think it's closer in spirit.

> I will explain ahead.
> 
> > 
> >> Your whole speach makes me sick...and that's pretty bad
> >> as i am also a lifelong musician/performer myself with copyrights and all.
> >> But to take the slant you take - spin the curve on that spit ball is tripe.
> >> My mother would call it.." GUFF..". . indeed.
> >> 
> > I'm not a lifelong musician or performer, but I have this little deal
> > going with them -- they make music, they make it available under certain
> > terms, and I abide by those terms or do without.  Not that hard.
> 
> Right here is a place where you've stepped in the wrong end of the pool.
> You've jumped in waters way over your head..and don't even know it.
> Here's why some of these 'certain circumstances' you refer to validates
> the P2P disemination of MP3's causing your argument to disintegrate.
>   For one.. the songs are FREELY played on radio/televison..they are
> played/STREAMED/DUPLICATED-**FREE** to the MASS PUBLIC..
> and done so TO MILLIONS & MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AT ONE TIME.!!

Radio/television does *not* play them freely.  The *broadcaster* pays fees.

> Now make a mental note of this*- RADIO & TV.."DO NOT"require membership.
> FREE.!! -- to the MASSES.!!!.... in the *PUBLIC DOMAIN* - E V E R Y D A Y!!
>   The construction of these already FREELY AIRED SONGS to MP3's
> is nothing more than what has ALREADY been done..and with most songs
> it's been done 1000's & 1000's of times for years & years - FREE.

I'd wager a vanishingly small percentage of traded MP3s are taken from
over-the-air recordings.  Because (make a mental note of this) CDs tend
to be a higher quality source, as well as far more convinent to rip from.
Note also that while it's legal to record what is broadcast to you, you
are not allowed to redistribute those broadcasts without the proper
permissions and payments.

I will concede that most songs spread as MP3 have been played over the
airwaves 1000s of times.  Which means that those who share them are doing
it for "free music", not try-before-you-buy.

> There's a damn good reason for that! -cause corporate white collar worms
> that have controlled the Music industry by legal & finacial club & armor
> know that "".. you have to let the people have the music FREELY FIRST.."'
> ""FREELY ---- before anyone will BUY - PUCHASE - SPEND MOOLA.."'
> 
Yes, the labels have been known to (illegally) pay broadcasters to pay
their music for promotional purposes.  This doesn't harm the composers,
who get their royalties anyway.  If the labels perceived radio broadcasts
as a substitute for purchasing the product, they wouldn't do it.  In
fact, they'd probably lobby for royalties along the lines of internet
broadcasters.

See, they're general thought is that you need to be *exposed* to the
music first before you'll buy.  If they thought you need to *possess*
the music first, they'd have a very different approach to P2P.

> The corporate worms spoken about are none other than the very people
> behind the RIAA and the all out charge attack upon P2P and anyone
> that carries an iPOD.  You see..because it's the "greedy corporate mongers"
> that are the THEIVING BASTARDS --and have ben ALL ALONG.
> 
I have an iPod.  The RIAA is (publicly) fine with that, since it's full
of music I ripped from CDs I bought.  I will concede that the RIAA
are Theiving Bastards.  I just don't get the logical connection between
the RIAA cheating performers out of their royalties and paying composers
a reduced rate -- and you being justified in cheating performers out of
their royalties and paying composers nothing at all.  Why imitate the
RIAA?

> Don't be shocked at my words..nor take them lightly please.??
> You don't know me(Defi) or my songs.. But you do know luminaries
> and other genuine stars..such as the likes of Roger McGuin of 'BYRDS'etc.
> He and others will tell you the same story.. and they likemyself, will
> tell you that NOW - because of the internet & MP3's - BIG BROTHER's upset!
> BIG BROTHER in this case in the shoes of the Corp Music Companies.
> They've been "surgically removed" from the equation - OH YEAH BABY!!!!
> 
They haven't been removed.  Because of widespread illegal distribution of
their material, the P2P networks are *dominated* by their music.  I
consider this a tragedy.

> Pretty soon.. there will great musicians like Roger Mcguin Sting etc.,.that
> will be dealing their own albums & MP3's -- DIRECT -- *NO CORP WORMS*.
> 
And P2P can "remove them from the equation" just as easily as the RIAA.
Am I to believe that the same folks who are rude to Metallica are going
to be polite to Sting?

Sting's available from the ITMS right now.  I'll grant that *CORP WORMS*
are still in the process there, but I think Sting would prefer you to
get his songs from ITMS anyway.

> That's why its " pay back "...let alone for the 20 - 40 years of getting
> screwed with inferior cassettes bodies..warped vinyl LP's..& defective CDs.
> Cheap garbage constuction..done by slaves in a 3rd world sweatshop
> then sold at SKY ROCKET PRICES.!!!--$20.00 LP's --$40.00 CD's!!!
> all so the greedy *NON-creative..NON-musician..LEACHES* can continue
> to hold starving musicians and fans by the monetary balls.
> 
I have never paid $20 for an LP or $40 for a CD.  Every CD I bought was
worth the price (to me) at the time, which is why I bought it.  No one
made me buy it.  There are tens of thousands of albums which were NOT
worth it, so I did not buy them.  *That's* how you get back at the RIAA.

> All the LABELS can rot in MP3 hell - "the music belongs to the people" .
> 
> I can't take credit for that - but i can quote it.!.

You can quote it, but you can't support it.  As a matter of law, the
lyrics, music, and performance all belong to their respective copyright
holders.  As a matter of fact, music is *created* by composers, lyricists,
and performers.  "The people" only enter into the picture when they
incent the real musicians to do that by funneling money to those who
make the music.  The RIAA is a particularly inefficient way of doing
that.  P2P seems to be even worse.

The record labels also play a role in fronting production costs and
promoting music after it was created.  The former *is* a real contribution
to creating music, and the latter is effective, if rather limited.

You said you were going to explain how I am a thief too.  I must have
missed that part.  Or have you confused me with a record cartel?
-- 
Dale J. Stephenson
dalestephenson@mac.com
3/27/87 -- Ed Hearn for David Cone.  12/20/02 -- Millwood for Estrada
Schuerholz has finally topped himself.
0
dalestephenson
9/18/2003 3:21:37 PM
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:31:11 -0600, Keeper of the Purple Twilight wrote
(in message <110920031231089587%no@spam.invalid>):

> Hardly a day goes by these days when we don't hear about new lawsuits
> filed by the RIAA.  I know they're targeting people who use P2P
> software (like Kazaa) and who download and/or share MP3's illegally. 
> But what if I DON'T do any of these things?  
> 
> I don't have P2P software - never used it at all, never will.  I don't
> download MP3's, and I don't *share* them - illegally or otherwise.  (I
> do have MP3's on my computer and listen to them via iTunes, but these
> are all ripped from CDs THAT I OWN and that I BOUGHT LEGALLY - and
> again, these are not shared, nobody downloads them from my computer)
> 
> Am I still a target?  As I said, I have no sharing of any kind.  I
> don't download either.
> 
> 

If you listen carefully, you'll hear that they are targeting UPLOADERS with 
1,000 copyrighted files or more. Common sense would indicate the next target 
will be uploaders with less than 1,000 � files or downloaders with more than 
1,000 

-- 

Take my advice. I'm not using it.

0
Chris
9/18/2003 4:13:16 PM
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 10:13:16 -0600, Chris H. wrote
(in message <0001HW.BB8F35BC011E451AF0305600@news.comcast.giganews.com>):

> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:31:11 -0600, Keeper of the Purple Twilight wrote
> (in message <110920031231089587%no@spam.invalid>):
> 
>> Hardly a day goes by these days when we don't hear about new lawsuits
>> filed by the RIAA.  I know they're targeting people who use P2P
>> software (like Kazaa) and who download and/or share MP3's illegally. 
>> But what if I DON'T do any of these things?  
>> 
>> I don't have P2P software - never used it at all, never will.  I don't
>> download MP3's, and I don't *share* them - illegally or otherwise.  (I
>> do have MP3's on my computer and listen to them via iTunes, but these
>> are all ripped from CDs THAT I OWN and that I BOUGHT LEGALLY - and
>> again, these are not shared, nobody downloads them from my computer)
>> 
>> Am I still a target?  As I said, I have no sharing of any kind.  I
>> don't download either.
>> 
>> 

If you listen carefully, you'll hear that they are targeting UPLOADERS with 
1,000 copyrighted files or more. Common sense would indicate the next target 
will be uploaders with less than 1,000 � files or downloaders with more than 
1,000 
 
 

Sorry, please excuse the application quit. To pick up where I left off...

� files. They have never said a thing about KEEPING music on your HD, just 
sharing it. Now they have made some noise about loaning CD's, the good old 
'mix' tape/CD, and karaoke, but nothing at all about loading music for 
personal use. Of course, it probably won't be too long until the RIAA decides 
that if there is more than the original purchaser in the room or car when a 
copyright piece is played, the other listeners will need to pay a usage fee 
or be subject to criminal/civil action.

Chris H.

-- 

"You're blowing it all with paranoia"
From "Destroyer" by The Kinks

0
Chris
9/18/2003 5:36:32 PM
Are you back?.. WHY???  you've already drown a couple times.

You're exhibiting pure stupidity at on this post - *FREELY TO THE PUBLIC*
I want you to cite one single legal case of a US citizen being busted
by the RIAA or "Radio Police" for *illegally copying - � infringment* EVER??
..... . . 
uhh h..  We're waiting smart guy.

About your supositions - just because "smoke on the water" is a classic
that's been played zillions of times - FAR from means everyone's heard it
nor does it mean because they it was once offered on an album - it still is.
RARE songs that will never be released again - yet covered by coptright
are another reason people flock to using P2P - to get the songs they've
been searching for - for YEARS!!!! - & YEARS!!!! in many cases.
People won't to GO TO THEIR GRAVES WAITING FOR RELEASES!!
That's not how Corporate RATS and people like *YOU* spout-off about it tho.
HAA!! -- suck an egg Mr. RIAA.

Like i said, you make me sick.. all your condesending RIAA rhetoric is crap.

I'll point out to you to look at my first entry in this thread.
It's the one that starts with the line.." This is all bullshit..".

It goes on to explain that the RIAA and all the labels
are the perpetraters of openly encourageing and providing all the tools
for exactly what they talk the other side of their filthy mouths about
which is " FREE DUPLICATION ENMASSE BY THE PUBLIC " of ALL media.

THAT'S the real facts in your face - just like TV & Radio FREE BROADCASTS
recorded everysingle day by people with stereo's and VCR's..is the
inarguable  fact that there would not be a single recordable CDR on the
market if it wasn't EXACTLY what the Labels&the RIAA ordered & PAYED FOR.
They continue to pay the Blank-media-makers to proliferate recordables
to the public enmasse.

Lastly, ..i don't know who you think you're yakkin at?-- i know more about
the inside workings of Radio/TB/Film/ and the Rock Music world
than you could possibly dream. What's obvious is that YOU don't know squat.
I could list your mistakes but why waste my time - no thanks.
But you've tried to use the RIAA rhetoric to deflect and make an end-around.
It won't work.  Music that's been 'aired freely to the mass public' is not
payed for by the public- and once the public "GETS IT FREE"(like everyday)
they have the right to ripp-it..burn it - ***** SHARE IT *****.
That's the bottom line here..and nothing- no smoke & mirrors bout copyright
is gonna change that fact as it pertains to MP3's along with it.

OH.. and i will give you one more thing,,(you've been so civil-not my prob:)
There are several classic LP's/Cassettes/CD's that I have bought
and had to replace OVER & OVER & OVER & OVER due to them dissintegrating.
There is atleast a dozen that have cost me upward of $300-$400 bucks
just to replace the "original purchase that i payed all the royalties for".
Thus the reason and BLESSING for"blank media"(tho still horribly inferior)
Being forced to "re-pay & re-pay" for the same product payed in full for
is what is known as "Hiway Robbery" -- "Theives".
  I would count you amongst that group - that's fine, STAY THERE ; )
But the Public will not - never has - never will.

P2P Forever - OYYY!!
w
K

>Dale J. Stephenson proclaimed 9/18/03 10:21 AM:

> King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> writes:
> 
>> my last diggs on this set..onward ;.)
>>> Dale J. Stephenson proclaimed 9/17/03 4:50 PM:
>> 
> [...]
>>> If you took something somebody else made, against their permission, you're
>>> doing something that is illegal at worst, and impolite at best.
>> 
>> Think everyone here would do much better than to continue
>> trying to make "carpet bagging comparrisons & allusions".
>> The bias's displayed in this thread have run the gamut
>> and originated from RIAA insiders - to everyday people like me.
>> You wanna call me a thief.?? -- I'll call you Thief too.
> 
> I want to call you a leech.  I think it's closer in spirit.
> 
>> I will explain ahead.
>> 
>>> 
>>>> Your whole speach makes me sick...and that's pretty bad
>>>> as i am also a lifelong musician/performer myself with copyrights and all.
>>>> But to take the slant you take - spin the curve on that spit ball is tripe.
>>>> My mother would call it.." GUFF..". . indeed.
>>>> 
>>> I'm not a lifelong musician or performer, but I have this little deal
>>> going with them -- they make music, they make it available under certain
>>> terms, and I abide by those terms or do without.  Not that hard.
>> 
>> Right here is a place where you've stepped in the wrong end of the pool.
>> You've jumped in waters way over your head..and don't even know it.
>> Here's why some of these 'certain circumstances' you refer to validates
>> the P2P disemination of MP3's causing your argument to disintegrate.
>> For one.. the songs are FREELY played on radio/televison..they are
>> played/STREAMED/DUPLICATED-**FREE** to the MASS PUBLIC..
>> and done so TO MILLIONS & MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AT ONE TIME.!!
> 
> Radio/television does *not* play them freely.  The *broadcaster* pays fees.
> 
>> Now make a mental note of this*- RADIO & TV.."DO NOT"require membership.
>> FREE.!! -- to the MASSES.!!!.... in the *PUBLIC DOMAIN* - E V E R Y D A Y!!
>> The construction of these already FREELY AIRED SONGS to MP3's
>> is nothing more than what has ALREADY been done..and with most songs
>> it's been done 1000's & 1000's of times for years & years - FREE.
> 
> I'd wager a vanishingly small percentage of traded MP3s are taken from
> over-the-air recordings.  Because (make a mental note of this) CDs tend
> to be a higher quality source, as well as far more convinent to rip from.
> Note also that while it's legal to record what is broadcast to you, you
> are not allowed to redistribute those broadcasts without the proper
> permissions and payments.
> 
> I will concede that most songs spread as MP3 have been played over the
> airwaves 1000s of times.  Which means that those who share them are doing
> it for "free music", not try-before-you-buy.
> 
>> There's a damn good reason for that! -cause corporate white collar worms
>> that have controlled the Music industry by legal & finacial club & armor
>> know that "".. you have to let the people have the music FREELY FIRST.."'
>> ""FREELY ---- before anyone will BUY - PUCHASE - SPEND MOOLA.."'
>> 
> Yes, the labels have been known to (illegally) pay broadcasters to pay
> their music for promotional purposes.  This doesn't harm the composers,
> who get their royalties anyway.  If the labels perceived radio broadcasts
> as a substitute for purchasing the product, they wouldn't do it.  In
> fact, they'd probably lobby for royalties along the lines of internet
> broadcasters.
> 
> See, they're general thought is that you need to be *exposed* to the
> music first before you'll buy.  If they thought you need to *possess*
> the music first, they'd have a very different approach to P2P.
> 
>> The corporate worms spoken about are none other than the very people
>> behind the RIAA and the all out charge attack upon P2P and anyone
>> that carries an iPOD.  You see..because it's the "greedy corporate mongers"
>> that are the THEIVING BASTARDS --and have ben ALL ALONG.
>> 
> I have an iPod.  The RIAA is (publicly) fine with that, since it's full
> of music I ripped from CDs I bought.  I will concede that the RIAA
> are Theiving Bastards.  I just don't get the logical connection between
> the RIAA cheating performers out of their royalties and paying composers
> a reduced rate -- and you being justified in cheating performers out of
> their royalties and paying composers nothing at all.  Why imitate the
> RIAA?
> 
>> Don't be shocked at my words..nor take them lightly please.??
>> You don't know me(Defi) or my songs.. But you do know luminaries
>> and other genuine stars..such as the likes of Roger McGuin of 'BYRDS'etc.
>> He and others will tell you the same story.. and they likemyself, will
>> tell you that NOW - because of the internet & MP3's - BIG BROTHER's upset!
>> BIG BROTHER in this case in the shoes of the Corp Music Companies.
>> They've been "surgically removed" from the equation - OH YEAH BABY!!!!
>> 
> They haven't been removed.  Because of widespread illegal distribution of
> their material, the P2P networks are *dominated* by their music.  I
> consider this a tragedy.
> 
>> Pretty soon.. there will great musicians like Roger Mcguin Sting etc.,.that
>> will be dealing their own albums & MP3's -- DIRECT -- *NO CORP WORMS*.
>> 
> And P2P can "remove them from the equation" just as easily as the RIAA.
> Am I to believe that the same folks who are rude to Metallica are going
> to be polite to Sting?
> 
> Sting's available from the ITMS right now.  I'll grant that *CORP WORMS*
> are still in the process there, but I think Sting would prefer you to
> get his songs from ITMS anyway.
> 
>> That's why its " pay back "...let alone for the 20 - 40 years of getting
>> screwed with inferior cassettes bodies..warped vinyl LP's..& defective CDs.
>> Cheap garbage constuction..done by slaves in a 3rd world sweatshop
>> then sold at SKY ROCKET PRICES.!!!--$20.00 LP's --$40.00 CD's!!!
>> all so the greedy *NON-creative..NON-musician..LEACHES* can continue
>> to hold starving musicians and fans by the monetary balls.
>> 
> I have never paid $20 for an LP or $40 for a CD.  Every CD I bought was
> worth the price (to me) at the time, which is why I bought it.  No one
> made me buy it.  There are tens of thousands of albums which were NOT
> worth it, so I did not buy them.  *That's* how you get back at the RIAA.
> 
>> All the LABELS can rot in MP3 hell - "the music belongs to the people" .
>> 
>> I can't take credit for that - but i can quote it.!.
> 
> You can quote it, but you can't support it.  As a matter of law, the
> lyrics, music, and performance all belong to their respective copyright
> holders.  As a matter of fact, music is *created* by composers, lyricists,
> and performers.  "The people" only enter into the picture when they
> incent the real musicians to do that by funneling money to those who
> make the music.  The RIAA is a particularly inefficient way of doing
> that.  P2P seems to be even worse.
> 
> The record labels also play a role in fronting production costs and
> promoting music after it was created.  The former *is* a real contribution
> to creating music, and the latter is effective, if rather limited.
> 
> You said you were going to explain how I am a thief too.  I must have
> missed that part.  Or have you confused me with a record cartel?

0
King
9/18/2003 6:12:51 PM
In article <m3ad92jh0n.fsf@mac.com>,
 dalestephenson@mac.com (Dale J. Stephenson) wrote:

> Copyright infringement doesn't meet the legal definition of theft, but for
> common usage steal works well.  When Apple put "Don't Steal Music" stickers
> on their iPods, they confused no one who did not wish to be confused.

I don't think "steal" works well at all. It's not stealing just because the 
RIAA uses the word that way. And of course Apple doesn't confuse anyone 
with their stickers; we've become accustomed to language abuse. The issue 
is copyright violation; it doesn't need to be dumbed down with 
cops-and-robbers talk. 

One observation: It's Congress that defines copyright laws and violations. 
The law has changed over the decades and continues to evolve. Congress 
doesn't redefine "steal" and "theft" or even define it at all.
0
The
9/18/2003 11:24:43 PM
In article <0001HW.BB8F35BC011E451AF0305600@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
 Chris H. <Spaminator@SpamFree.Invalid> wrote:

> If you listen carefully, you'll hear that they are targeting UPLOADERS with 
> 1,000 copyrighted files or more. Common sense would indicate the next target 
> will be uploaders with less than 1,000 � files or downloaders with more than 
> 1,000 

Actually the Verizon vs. RIAA business back at the beginning of the year 
concerned a Kazaa user who was making only 600-700 music titles available 
(this was misrepresented in the media as an illegal downloading case - even 
in the computer press - again, it was an uploading case).

On the downloaders: How will the RIAA know who's downloading what? With the 
uploaders it's right there in front of them: they see who's offering what, 
and since they represent mulititudes of copyright holders, they can go 
after those illegally distributing the titles over which they have control. 
But downloading is much dicier it seems to me. How can they go after 
downloaders unless they know what they are downloading? Is it even illegal 
to download from kazaa? (If a guy is handing out free copies of Harry 
Potter on the corner, is it illegal to accept one?) What would the subpoena 
be for? To search your entire house for computers, ipods, and anything else 
on which music can be digitally stored?
0
The
9/18/2003 11:43:43 PM
King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> writes:

> Are you back?.. WHY???  you've already drown a couple times.
> 
"King Neptune" should be an expert on submersion.

> You're exhibiting pure stupidity at on this post - *FREELY TO THE PUBLIC*
> I want you to cite one single legal case of a US citizen being busted
> by the RIAA or "Radio Police" for *illegally copying - � infringment* EVER??
> .... . . 
> uhh h..  We're waiting smart guy.
> 
I'm not sure what you're asking for, especially since you've abandoned
direct responses in favor of top-posting.  Has any US citizen been sued
by the RIAA for copyright infringement?  Yes, they have.  This thread was
started by exactly such activity.

> About your supositions - just because "smoke on the water" is a classic
> that's been played zillions of times - FAR from means everyone's heard it
> nor does it mean because they it was once offered on an album - it still is.
> RARE songs that will never be released again - yet covered by coptright
> are another reason people flock to using P2P - to get the songs they've
> been searching for - for YEARS!!!! - & YEARS!!!! in many cases.
> People won't to GO TO THEIR GRAVES WAITING FOR RELEASES!!
> That's not how Corporate RATS and people like *YOU* spout-off about it tho.
> HAA!! -- suck an egg Mr. RIAA.
> 
I'm not sure which supposition you are responding to.  I suppose the
supposition that those who download "smoke on the water" have usually
*heard* "smoke on the water".  That song *is* available at iTMS, BTW,
though it's a live version.  I hate live versions.  (There's also a
Pat Boone cover there, for the masochistic.)

I would like to see copyright law reformed so that copyright holders have
an obligation to make their product *available*, or lose the copyright
far quicker.  It's really annoying not to be able to get "abandonware" of
any kind.  That said, I think the percentage of P2P traffic in rare,
not-for-sale songs is rather low.  Feel free to prove me wrong.

> Like i said, you make me sick.. all your condesending RIAA rhetoric is crap.
> 
That's certainly a convincing argument if ever I heard one.

> I'll point out to you to look at my first entry in this thread.
> It's the one that starts with the line.." This is all bullshit..".
> 
Appropriate.

> It goes on to explain that the RIAA and all the labels
> are the perpetraters of openly encourageing and providing all the tools
> for exactly what they talk the other side of their filthy mouths about
> which is " FREE DUPLICATION ENMASSE BY THE PUBLIC " of ALL media.
> 
> THAT'S the real facts in your face - just like TV & Radio FREE BROADCASTS
> recorded everysingle day by people with stereo's and VCR's..is the
> inarguable  fact that there would not be a single recordable CDR on the
> market if it wasn't EXACTLY what the Labels&the RIAA ordered & PAYED FOR.
> They continue to pay the Blank-media-makers to proliferate recordables
> to the public enmasse.
> 
So the RIAA invented the CDR and continue to subsidize it today?  Wow,
I can honestly say I've never heard that "real fact" before.  I'm grateful,
but you would think they could spend all that money more effectively on
payola or lobbying.

> Lastly, ..i don't know who you think you're yakkin at?-- i know more about
> the inside workings of Radio/TB/Film/ and the Rock Music world
> than you could possibly dream. What's obvious is that YOU don't know squat.
> I could list your mistakes but why waste my time - no thanks.

That's convincing as well.  As long as you say you know the inside workings,
I should obviously take your word for it, though you can't be bothered to
point out any actual errors in anything I wrote.  Why did you bother to
respond, especially since you said last time it was your "last diggs"?

> But you've tried to use the RIAA rhetoric to deflect and make an end-around.
> It won't work.  Music that's been 'aired freely to the mass public' is not
> payed for by the public- and once the public "GETS IT FREE"(like everyday)
> they have the right to ripp-it..burn it - ***** SHARE IT *****.
> That's the bottom line here..and nothing- no smoke & mirrors bout copyright
> is gonna change that fact as it pertains to MP3's along with it.
> 
As a *practical* matter it may be impossible to stop P2P.  As a legal
matter, media broadcast does NOT invalidate copyright, and does NOT
authorize further (royalty free) rebroadcast.

> OH.. and i will give you one more thing,,(you've been so civil-not my prob:)
> There are several classic LP's/Cassettes/CD's that I have bought
> and had to replace OVER & OVER & OVER & OVER due to them dissintegrating.
> There is atleast a dozen that have cost me upward of $300-$400 bucks
> just to replace the "original purchase that i payed all the royalties for".
> Thus the reason and BLESSING for"blank media"(tho still horribly inferior)
> Being forced to "re-pay & re-pay" for the same product payed in full for
> is what is known as "Hiway Robbery" -- "Theives".

Sorry to hear that.  I spent a ton of money replacing my cassettes with
CDs, but the CDs had higher quality audio and didn't wear out nearly
as often.  If you're wearing out CDs, making backups and using those
could save you money.  I mostly listen on my computer or the iPod these
days, so a significant portion of my CDs stays in boxes in the basement.

But no one *forced* you to re-pay and re-pay.  You bought a medium that
wears out/breaks, and you knew that when you got it.  You could have made
a (possibly lossy) backup when you got it to extend the life of the
product.  It's *not* robbery when both parties agree to the transaction.
You did have the alternative NOT to buy their product under the conditions
offered.

>   I would count you amongst that group - that's fine, STAY THERE ; )
> But the Public will not - never has - never will.
> 
Why would you count me among that group?  I have no label, I have no
record company stock.  I think the RIAA is an evil cartel with an
unhealthy measure of control over the people who *really* make the
product.  (Kind of like baseball owners.)

But I don't think "sharing" RIAA-owned music via P2P makes the situation
better.  That makes me a thief?

At least it doesn't make me a leech.
-- 
Dale J. Stephenson
dalestephenson@mac.com
3/27/87 -- Ed Hearn for David Cone.  12/20/02 -- Millwood for Estrada
Schuerholz has finally topped himself.
0
dalestephenson
9/19/2003 4:01:30 AM
The World Wide Wade <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> writes:

> In article <m3ad92jh0n.fsf@mac.com>,
>  dalestephenson@mac.com (Dale J. Stephenson) wrote:
> 
> > Copyright infringement doesn't meet the legal definition of theft, but for
> > common usage steal works well.  When Apple put "Don't Steal Music" stickers
> > on their iPods, they confused no one who did not wish to be confused.
> 
> I don't think "steal" works well at all. It's not stealing just because the 
> RIAA uses the word that way. And of course Apple doesn't confuse anyone 
> with their stickers; we've become accustomed to language abuse. The issue 
> is copyright violation; it doesn't need to be dumbed down with 
> cops-and-robbers talk. 
> 
If everyone understands, it's perfectly valid language.  "Don't infringe
copyright" would be more confusing to the masses IMO, even though more correct.

> One observation: It's Congress that defines copyright laws and violations. 
> The law has changed over the decades and continues to evolve. Congress 
> doesn't redefine "steal" and "theft" or even define it at all.

I'd expect it to be more likely for a legal definition of theft to show
up in state penal codes.  AFAIK, theft isn't a federal crime.  Putting
"legal definition" and "theft" into Google turns up plenty of pages.

Language also changes over the decades and continues to evolve.  "Piracy"
is now probably used more commonly for copyright infringement than it is
for the old definition, even though the two have little in common.
-- 
Dale J. Stephenson
dalestephenson@mac.com
3/27/87 -- Ed Hearn for David Cone.  12/20/02 -- Millwood for Estrada
Schuerholz has finally topped himself.
0
dalestephenson
9/19/2003 4:11:43 AM
Dale J. Stephenson proclaimed 9/18/03 11:11 PM:

> The World Wide Wade <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> writes:
> 
>> In article <m3ad92jh0n.fsf@mac.com>,
>> dalestephenson@mac.com (Dale J. Stephenson) wrote:
>> 
>>> Copyright infringement doesn't meet the legal definition of theft, but for
>>> common usage steal works well.  When Apple put "Don't Steal Music" stickers
>>> on their iPods, they confused no one who did not wish to be confused.
>> 
>> I don't think "steal" works well at all. It's not stealing just because the
>> RIAA uses the word that way. And of course Apple doesn't confuse anyone
>> with their stickers; we've become accustomed to language abuse. The issue
>> is copyright violation; it doesn't need to be dumbed down with
>> cops-and-robbers talk.
>> 
> If everyone understands, it's perfectly valid language.  "Don't infringe
> copyright" would be more confusing to the masses IMO, even though more
> correct.

APPLE is trying to launch a MUSIC STORE -- NOW.!. --- but were they
so self righteous before that??? -- where was their shame then?
Did they run adds calling P2P members theives BEFORE opening shop??
HAA!!!  -- not hardly  ; )

>> One observation: It's Congress that defines copyright laws and violations.
>> The law has changed over the decades and continues to evolve. Congress
>> doesn't redefine "steal" and "theft" or even define it at all.
> 
> I'd expect it to be more likely for a legal definition of theft to show
> up in state penal codes.  AFAIK, theft isn't a federal crime.  Putting
> "legal definition" and "theft" into Google turns up plenty of pages.
> 
> Language also changes over the decades and continues to evolve.  "Piracy"
> is now probably used more commonly for copyright infringement than it is
> for the old definition, even though the two have little in common.

This is where you don't know squat Bucky Boy - PIRACY is the
outright subversion of copyright profits done by REAL THEIVES
that mass produce vast quantities of media CD's..tapes..etc. making
imitation copies of the original package case & cover. Then sold
as the original product in commercial markets.

Like i said.. you don't know squat - and that is just one place
you've been yantering all thru this now dieing thread.
World Wide Wade once again makes simple valid points.
Atleast he's informed - which is what you are not.

Ciao,
w
K

0
King
9/19/2003 6:23:40 AM
Dale J. Stephenson proclaimed 9/18/03 11:01 PM:


> > King Neptune  writes:
>> Are you back?.. WHY???  you've already drown a couple times.
>> 
> "King Neptune" should be an expert on submersion.
Yup -- like said.. i saw you go under long ago ; O)
 
>> You're exhibiting pure stupidity at on this post - *FREELY TO THE PUBLIC*
>> I want you to cite one single legal case of a US citizen being busted
>> by the RIAA or "Radio Police" for *illegally copying - � infringment* EVER??
>> .... . . 
>> uhh h..  We're waiting smart guy.
>> 
> I'm not sure what you're asking for, especially since you've abandoned
> direct responses in favor of top-posting.  Has any US citizen been sued
> by the RIAA for copyright infringement?  Yes, they have.  This thread was
> started by exactly such activity.
Well goofball... the statement is a continuation of the prior post dialogue
and the phrazes *FREELY TO THE PUBLIC* & "Radio Police" should give
you the clues that we're talking about people being busted for recording
from their radio or TV..etc.
  The question remains -- name one goddamn person that's been hauled in
for recording off the radio -- name one busted for his VCR tape.
The airwaves ARE FREE... and the people know that all this saber rattling
from the ranks of puffy-wigged lawyers & vampires doesn't disguise the fact
that the entire premiss of the "FBI MP3 RAIDS" is complete BS.

Are there insidious assholes abounding.??? -- Yup.. most certainly
when all youhave to learn is that Microsloth has hired coders(like you ; )
to "build in" trojan-type mechanisms into their SW that acts as spy-ware
to scan ALL of your computers drives for ANY MP3's and send that
data back to Microsloth who then will activate or send you a worm.
They have also made the scan to include "seeing your P2P programs"
and thus knowing - send you "disable-ware" to F*ck-up your computer.
I don't care if you don't believe it..cause that's your ignorance
and don't ask - i've already put up links where that can be found.

Ciao,
w
K

0
King
9/19/2003 6:38:35 AM
King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<BB900E9A.BD69%hopestarrr@hotmail.com>...
> Dale J. Stephenson proclaimed 9/18/03 11:01 PM:
> 
> 
> > > King Neptune  writes:
> >> Are you back?.. WHY???  you've already drown a couple times.
> >> 
> > "King Neptune" should be an expert on submersion.
> Yup -- like said.. i saw you go under long ago ; O)
>  
> >> You're exhibiting pure stupidity at on this post - *FREELY TO THE PUBLIC*
> >> I want you to cite one single legal case of a US citizen being busted
> >> by the RIAA or "Radio Police" for *illegally copying - � infringment* EVER??
> >> .... . . 
> >> uhh h..  We're waiting smart guy.
> >> 
> > I'm not sure what you're asking for, especially since you've abandoned
> > direct responses in favor of top-posting.  Has any US citizen been sued
> > by the RIAA for copyright infringement?  Yes, they have.  This thread was
> > started by exactly such activity.
> Well goofball... the statement is a continuation of the prior post dialogue
> and the phrazes *FREELY TO THE PUBLIC* & "Radio Police" should give
> you the clues that we're talking about people being busted for recording
> from their radio or TV..etc.
>   The question remains -- name one goddamn person that's been hauled in
> for recording off the radio -- name one busted for his VCR tape.
> The airwaves ARE FREE... and the people know that all this saber rattling
> from the ranks of puffy-wigged lawyers & vampires doesn't disguise the fact
> that the entire premiss of the "FBI MP3 RAIDS" is complete BS.
> 
> Are there insidious assholes abounding.??? -- Yup.. most certainly
> when all youhave to learn is that Microsloth has hired coders(like you ; )
> to "build in" trojan-type mechanisms into their SW that acts as spy-ware
> to scan ALL of your computers drives for ANY MP3's and send that
> data back to Microsloth who then will activate or send you a worm.
> They have also made the scan to include "seeing your P2P programs"
> and thus knowing - send you "disable-ware" to F*ck-up your computer.
> I don't care if you don't believe it..cause that's your ignorance
> and don't ask - i've already put up links where that can be found.
> 
> Ciao,
> w
> K

*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
RIAA, hmmm...

Well I'm sitting here looking at my original music CD (which will be
the last one I buy may I add) and it clearly states the following:

"All rights of the producer and of the owner of the recorded work
reserved.  Unauthorised copying, public performance, broadcasting,
hiring or rental of this recording prohibited."

fair enough......

Except that the bunch of MP3s I downloaded the other day didn't
mention any such thing.  If a file is called 'Crazy in Love -
Beyonce.MP3' how am I supposed to know if it's copyright or not?  How
am I supposed to know if that particular piece of music was made for
profit just by looking at a file name?  I doubt you can enforce a
copyright without first declaring 'copyright'......

I know some of you critics out there will be thinking "oh yeah, you
had no idea you were downloading copyright protected music....", well
actually in the case of the 12 year old girl I bet none of the files
she downloaded had a copyright statement attached so actually she
really didn't have any idea that those particular files were
copyrighted.  The RIAA cant just expect people to know which file is
illegal and which one isn't and before they counteract this claim with
some silly 'web based copyright listings' they can't expect people to
double check with them every time they download a file, open a page or
move a mouse....

If the file had a copyright statement attached then that would be
different, so if they have the time to trawl through 50 million + MP3s
on the web and change the ID tags then good luck to them.


If you want to help save the internet then pass this on�.

*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
0
cams0ft
9/19/2003 2:04:05 PM
King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> writes:

> Dale J. Stephenson proclaimed 9/18/03 11:01 PM:
> 
> 
> > > King Neptune  writes:
> >> Are you back?.. WHY???  you've already drown a couple times.
> >> 
> > "King Neptune" should be an expert on submersion.
> Yup -- like said.. i saw you go under long ago ; O)
>  
> >> You're exhibiting pure stupidity at on this post - *FREELY TO THE PUBLIC*
> >> I want you to cite one single legal case of a US citizen being busted
> >> by the RIAA or "Radio Police" for *illegally copying - � infringment* EVER??
> >> .... . . 
> >> uhh h..  We're waiting smart guy.
> >> 
> > I'm not sure what you're asking for, especially since you've abandoned
> > direct responses in favor of top-posting.  Has any US citizen been sued
> > by the RIAA for copyright infringement?  Yes, they have.  This thread was
> > started by exactly such activity.
> Well goofball... the statement is a continuation of the prior post dialogue
> and the phrazes *FREELY TO THE PUBLIC* & "Radio Police" should give
> you the clues that we're talking about people being busted for recording
> from their radio or TV..etc.

No one's claimed that people are or have been busted for recording from
their radio or TV.  There was already a lawsuit along this line in the
early days of the VCR, and recording was upheld as fair use.

This has *zilch* to do with P2P, which is *redistribution*.  That has
never been allowed by fair use recording.  You can record a baseball game
and watch it as many times as you want, even though the announcers state
"any rebroadcast, retransmission or other use of this game without the
express written consent of Major League Baseball is prohibited."  You
can't (without that express written consent) legally put it up on a P2P
network, charge a group to watch your copy of the game, or dub it over
in Inuit and resell it.

You do realize most music "shared" is NOT an mp3 of a radio broadcast?
The idea that being able to record from an over-the-air broadcast entitles
you to distribute a copy of the same title from a different, higher
quality format is novel, to say the least.

>   The question remains -- name one goddamn person that's been hauled in
> for recording off the radio -- name one busted for his VCR tape.
> The airwaves ARE FREE... and the people know that all this saber rattling
> from the ranks of puffy-wigged lawyers & vampires doesn't disguise the fact
> that the entire premiss of the "FBI MP3 RAIDS" is complete BS.
> 
Sure.  That's why the uploaders targetted by the RIAA are all fighting
it, because they know recording off the radio is legal, and that justifies
them in uploading thousands of MP3s ripped from CDs.  I think you
missed a logical step somewhere.

> Are there insidious assholes abounding.??? -- Yup.. most certainly
> when all youhave to learn is that Microsloth has hired coders(like you ; )
> to "build in" trojan-type mechanisms into their SW that acts as spy-ware
> to scan ALL of your computers drives for ANY MP3's and send that
> data back to Microsloth who then will activate or send you a worm.
> They have also made the scan to include "seeing your P2P programs"
> and thus knowing - send you "disable-ware" to F*ck-up your computer.
> I don't care if you don't believe it..cause that's your ignorance
> and don't ask - i've already put up links where that can be found.
> 
I don't use Microsoft software, and I've never worked for them.  I have
worked for Apple, for what it's worth.  I'd be very surprised if Apple
institutes a scheme such as you describe, since there's nothing in it
for them.

And I don't know what Microsoft's draconian plans to control DRM have
to do with the legality of "sharing" copyrighted material.  It's more
of an attack on the *practical* side of ripping, like those stupid
copy protected CDs.  I'll exercise my rights by not buying any CD
that won't let me play it on my computer, or any computer that won't let
me rip my CDs.  Companies without monopolies (this would exclude RIAA
and Microsoft) respond well to economic incentives.

Feel free to "refute" me again by bringing up a couple of badly stated 
points that don't actually address anything I've said.
-- 
Dale J. Stephenson
dalestephenson@mac.com
3/27/87 -- Ed Hearn for David Cone.  12/20/02 -- Millwood for Estrada
Schuerholz has finally topped himself.
0
dalestephenson
9/19/2003 3:05:05 PM
King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> writes:

> Dale J. Stephenson proclaimed 9/18/03 11:11 PM:
> 
> > The World Wide Wade <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> writes:
> > 
> >> In article <m3ad92jh0n.fsf@mac.com>,
> >> dalestephenson@mac.com (Dale J. Stephenson) wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Copyright infringement doesn't meet the legal definition of theft, but for
> >>> common usage steal works well.  When Apple put "Don't Steal Music" stickers
> >>> on their iPods, they confused no one who did not wish to be confused.
> >> 
> >> I don't think "steal" works well at all. It's not stealing just because the
> >> RIAA uses the word that way. And of course Apple doesn't confuse anyone
> >> with their stickers; we've become accustomed to language abuse. The issue
> >> is copyright violation; it doesn't need to be dumbed down with
> >> cops-and-robbers talk.
> >> 
> > If everyone understands, it's perfectly valid language.  "Don't infringe
> > copyright" would be more confusing to the masses IMO, even though more
> > correct.
> 
> APPLE is trying to launch a MUSIC STORE -- NOW.!. --- but were they
> so self righteous before that??? -- where was their shame then?
> Did they run adds calling P2P members theives BEFORE opening shop??
> HAA!!!  -- not hardly  ; )
> 
The "Don't Steal Music" sticker was on the very first iPods, long before
the music store came out.  I know because I bought one.

> >> One observation: It's Congress that defines copyright laws and violations.
> >> The law has changed over the decades and continues to evolve. Congress
> >> doesn't redefine "steal" and "theft" or even define it at all.
> > 
> > I'd expect it to be more likely for a legal definition of theft to show
> > up in state penal codes.  AFAIK, theft isn't a federal crime.  Putting
> > "legal definition" and "theft" into Google turns up plenty of pages.
> > 
> > Language also changes over the decades and continues to evolve.  "Piracy"
> > is now probably used more commonly for copyright infringement than it is
> > for the old definition, even though the two have little in common.
> 
> This is where you don't know squat Bucky Boy - PIRACY is the
> outright subversion of copyright profits done by REAL THEIVES
> that mass produce vast quantities of media CD's..tapes..etc. making
> imitation copies of the original package case & cover. Then sold
> as the original product in commercial markets.
> 
Yes, those have been called pirates since the 70s -- and they *are*
infringing copyright, so they are covered.  The "warez" software scene
does not produce imitation copies or claim to sell the original product,
but they are *also* infringing copyright, and have *also* been called
pirates for at least twenty years.  Both affect the copyright holder's
profits, though only the commercial pirates make money doing so.

> Like i said.. you don't know squat - and that is just one place
> you've been yantering all thru this now dieing thread.
> World Wide Wade once again makes simple valid points.
> Atleast he's informed - which is what you are not.
> 
You look particularly well informed when you jump in with an insulting
paragraph that doesn't actually contradict what I said.  Commercial
pirates ARE infringing copyright.
-- 
Dale J. Stephenson
dalestephenson@mac.com
3/27/87 -- Ed Hearn for David Cone.  12/20/02 -- Millwood for Estrada
Schuerholz has finally topped himself.
0
dalestephenson
9/19/2003 3:12:07 PM
cams0ft@hotmail.com (Aaron mC) writes:
[snip]
> Except that the bunch of MP3s I downloaded the other day didn't
> mention any such thing.  If a file is called 'Crazy in Love -
> Beyonce.MP3' how am I supposed to know if it's copyright or not?  How
> am I supposed to know if that particular piece of music was made for
> profit just by looking at a file name?  I doubt you can enforce a
> copyright without first declaring 'copyright'......
> 
You can't collect damages beyond "actual harm" unless a copyright is
registered (in the US).  But pretty much everything that can be covered
by copyright is automatically covered with copyright upon creation.

Ignorance of the law is not a defense in either civil or criminal
court.  Being poor is usually a good practical defense in civil court.  
"Never, never sue poor people"--Steve Dallas.  Of course, the RIAA is 
willing to lose money suing poor people for the hopeful chilling effect 
on the vast hordes that didn't get sued.
-- 
Dale J. Stephenson
dalestephenson@mac.com
3/27/87 -- Ed Hearn for David Cone.  12/20/02 -- Millwood for Estrada
Schuerholz has finally topped himself.
0
dalestephenson
9/19/2003 4:01:24 PM
In article <BB900B1C.BD68%hopestarrr@hotmail.com>,
 King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> wrote:

> APPLE is trying to launch a MUSIC STORE -- NOW.!. --- but were they
> so self righteous before that??? -- where was their shame then?
> Did they run adds calling P2P members theives BEFORE opening shop??
> HAA!!!  -- not hardly  ; )

Actually, before iTMS, they _were_ issuing statements to discourage 
music piracy that were appropriate to the tools and software they had at 
the time.

G
0
Gregory
9/19/2003 4:09:42 PM
In article <1f63ecd1.0309190604.1e16e623@posting.google.com>,
 cams0ft@hotmail.com (Aaron mC) wrote:

> fair enough......
> 
> Except that the bunch of MP3s I downloaded the other day didn't
> mention any such thing.  If a file is called 'Crazy in Love -
> Beyonce.MP3' how am I supposed to know if it's copyright or not?

Um. Because copyright exists automatically, whether it's declared or 
not. Did the owner of the rights to that performance grant you a license 
to it? No. Did such download fall within the traditional bounds of fair 
use? No. (Arguably discounting the situation where you already had it in 
another medium.)

G
0
Gregory
9/19/2003 4:12:29 PM
Dale J. Stephenson proclaimed 9/19/03 10:12 AM:

> King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Dale J. Stephenson proclaimed 9/18/03 11:11 PM:
>> 
>>> The World Wide Wade <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> writes:
>>> 
>>>> In article <m3ad92jh0n.fsf@mac.com>,
>>>> dalestephenson@mac.com (Dale J. Stephenson) wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Copyright infringement doesn't meet the legal definition of theft, but for
>>>>> common usage steal works well.  When Apple put "Don't Steal Music"
>>>>> stickers
>>>>> on their iPods, they confused no one who did not wish to be confused.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't think "steal" works well at all. It's not stealing just because the
>>>> RIAA uses the word that way. And of course Apple doesn't confuse anyone
>>>> with their stickers; we've become accustomed to language abuse. The issue
>>>> is copyright violation; it doesn't need to be dumbed down with
>>>> cops-and-robbers talk.
>>>> 
>>> If everyone understands, it's perfectly valid language.  "Don't infringe
>>> copyright" would be more confusing to the masses IMO, even though more
>>> correct.
>> 
>> APPLE is trying to launch a MUSIC STORE -- NOW.!. --- but were they
>> so self righteous before that??? -- where was their shame then?
>> Did they run adds calling P2P members theives BEFORE opening shop??
>> HAA!!!  -- not hardly  ; )
>> 
> The "Don't Steal Music" sticker was on the very first iPods, long before
> the music store came out.  I know because I bought one.
> 
>>>> One observation: It's Congress that defines copyright laws and violations.
>>>> The law has changed over the decades and continues to evolve. Congress
>>>> doesn't redefine "steal" and "theft" or even define it at all.
>>> 
>>> I'd expect it to be more likely for a legal definition of theft to show
>>> up in state penal codes.  AFAIK, theft isn't a federal crime.  Putting
>>> "legal definition" and "theft" into Google turns up plenty of pages.
>>> 
>>> Language also changes over the decades and continues to evolve.  "Piracy"
>>> is now probably used more commonly for copyright infringement than it is
>>> for the old definition, even though the two have little in common.
>> 
>> This is where you don't know squat Bucky Boy - PIRACY is the
>> outright subversion of copyright profits done by REAL THEIVES
>> that mass produce vast quantities of media CD's..tapes..etc. making
>> imitation copies of the original package case & cover. Then sold
>> as the original product in commercial markets.
>> 
> Yes, those have been called pirates since the 70s -- and they *are*
> infringing copyright, so they are covered.  The "warez" software scene
> does not produce imitation copies or claim to sell the original product,
> but they are *also* infringing copyright, and have *also* been called
> pirates for at least twenty years.  Both affect the copyright holder's
> profits, though only the commercial pirates make money doing so.
> 
>> Like i said.. you don't know squat - and that is just one place
>> you've been yantering all thru this now dieing thread.
>> World Wide Wade once again makes simple valid points.
>> Atleast he's informed - which is what you are not.
>> 
> You look particularly well informed when you jump in with an insulting
> paragraph that doesn't actually contradict what I said.  Commercial
> pirates ARE infringing copyright.

You're grasping for a lifesaver..but you're drowning anyway.
You bore me like some latest troll in comp.mac.hardware. comming back
to divert/deflect&deter any valid points trying to spin the same
flawed argument that characterizes "P2P sharing" along with piracy.
You lack the concentration to even follow the center of a discussion.
Blather else dood  ; )
w
K

0
King
9/19/2003 5:01:51 PM
Gregory Weston proclaimed 9/19/03 11:09 AM:

> In article <BB900B1C.BD68%hopestarrr@hotmail.com>,
> King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> APPLE is trying to launch a MUSIC STORE -- NOW.!. --- but were they
>> so self righteous before that??? -- where was their shame then?
>> Did they run adds calling P2P members theives BEFORE opening shop??
>> HAA!!!  -- not hardly  ; )
> 
> Actually, before iTMS, they _were_ issuing statements to discourage
> music piracy that were appropriate to the tools and software they had at
> the time.
> 
> G
I'm not about to change my point on APPLE - at the very least
they are hypocritical and it's all VERY "tongue-in-cheek"..isn't it?!?
I think so  ; )
  And i'm usually quite good at hyphenations.. but WTF is "iTMS".??
Thanks riches,
w
K

0
King
9/19/2003 5:06:22 PM
Gregory Weston proclaimed 9/19/03 11:12 AM:

> In article <1f63ecd1.0309190604.1e16e623@posting.google.com>,
> cams0ft@hotmail.com (Aaron mC) wrote:
> 
>> fair enough......
>> 
>> Except that the bunch of MP3s I downloaded the other day didn't
>> mention any such thing.  If a file is called 'Crazy in Love -
>> Beyonce.MP3' how am I supposed to know if it's copyright or not?
> 
> Um. Because copyright exists automatically, whether it's declared or
> not. Did the owner of the rights to that performance grant you a license
> to it? No. Did such download fall within the traditional bounds of fair
> use? No. (Arguably discounting the situation where you already had it in
> another medium.)
> 
> G
You're "hung up" in RIAA mentallity using terms like (quote you):
"fall within the traditional bounds of fair use?.."
You ofcourse answer NO.. but it's an oxymoron term to start with
since MP3's and P2P let alone PC's being used as STEREOS & VCR's
isn't ANYTHING TRADITIONAL to be found in the 'outdated book'.

In otherwords -- MP3's & P2P... *is* covered under fair use.
w
K 

0
King
9/19/2003 5:11:41 PM
Dale J. Stephenson proclaimed 9/19/03 11:01 AM:

> cams0ft@hotmail.com (Aaron mC) writes:
> [snip]
>> Except that the bunch of MP3s I downloaded the other day didn't
>> mention any such thing.  If a file is called 'Crazy in Love -
>> Beyonce.MP3' how am I supposed to know if it's copyright or not?  How
>> am I supposed to know if that particular piece of music was made for
>> profit just by looking at a file name?  I doubt you can enforce a
>> copyright without first declaring 'copyright'......
>> 
> You can't collect damages beyond "actual harm" unless a copyright is
> registered (in the US).  But pretty much everything that can be covered
> by copyright is automatically covered with copyright upon creation.
> 
Something that needs light here - is that just because
"everything is copyrighted"..or.."someone holds a commercial copyright"
STILL does in no way mean that you might not "be allowed" the use.
  There is also the fact of " granted permission "..&.. "permission sought"
in the former, the permission is granted and "it's yours" - period.
In the latter, you need only 'make a valid attempt' to contact the holder
and IF* you were unable to assertain their contact info the "fair use"
will come back into play.
w
K 

0
King
9/19/2003 5:19:31 PM
In article <m37k45ifi8.fsf@mac.com>,
Dale J. Stephenson <dalestephenson@mac.com> wrote:
>The World Wide Wade <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> writes:
>
>> In article <m3ad92jh0n.fsf@mac.com>,
>>  dalestephenson@mac.com (Dale J. Stephenson) wrote:
>> 
>> > Copyright infringement doesn't meet the legal definition of theft, but for
>> > common usage steal works well.  When Apple put "Don't Steal Music" stickers
>> > on their iPods, they confused no one who did not wish to be confused.
>> 
>> I don't think "steal" works well at all. It's not stealing just because the 
>> RIAA uses the word that way. And of course Apple doesn't confuse anyone 
>> with their stickers; we've become accustomed to language abuse. The issue 
>> is copyright violation; it doesn't need to be dumbed down with 
>> cops-and-robbers talk. 
>> 
>If everyone understands, it's perfectly valid language.  "Don't infringe
>copyright" would be more confusing to the masses IMO, even though more correct.

The term "theft" isn't being used because it is less confusing.  It's
being used to deliberately confuse the issue.  The term "piracy" was
invented for propaganda purposes, but at least no one confuses
copyright infringement with piracy on the high seas.  The RIAA, by
their use of the term, IS trying to assert that ordinary theft and
copyright infringement are one and the same, when that simply isn't
so; for one thing, the penalties for theft are much smaller.
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                            mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."  But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of 
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
0
russotto
9/19/2003 7:22:37 PM
In article <m3y8wkhl9a.fsf@mac.com>,
Dale J. Stephenson <dalestephenson@mac.com> wrote:
>
>No one's claimed that people are or have been busted for recording from
>their radio or TV.  There was already a lawsuit along this line in the
>early days of the VCR, and recording was upheld as fair use.

5-4, at the US Supreme Court.  Now-Chief Justice Rehnquist voted with
the 4.

-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                            mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."  But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of 
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
0
russotto
9/19/2003 7:27:52 PM
In article <m3pthwhinf.fsf@mac.com>,
Dale J. Stephenson <dalestephenson@mac.com> wrote:
>
>Ignorance of the law is not a defense in either civil or criminal
>court.  Being poor is usually a good practical defense in civil court.  
>"Never, never sue poor people"--Steve Dallas.  Of course, the RIAA is 
>willing to lose money suing poor people for the hopeful chilling effect 
>on the vast hordes that didn't get sued.

Ideally, the RIAA would like to drive the most sympathetic person in
the country into utter poverty in order to chill the vast hordes.
It's sort of the legal equivalent of threatening to drown a puppy a
day if you don't get your way.

-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                            mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."  But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of 
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
0
russotto
9/19/2003 7:36:38 PM
King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> writes:

> Dale J. Stephenson proclaimed 9/19/03 11:01 AM:
> 
> > cams0ft@hotmail.com (Aaron mC) writes:
> > [snip]
> >> Except that the bunch of MP3s I downloaded the other day didn't
> >> mention any such thing.  If a file is called 'Crazy in Love -
> >> Beyonce.MP3' how am I supposed to know if it's copyright or not?  How
> >> am I supposed to know if that particular piece of music was made for
> >> profit just by looking at a file name?  I doubt you can enforce a
> >> copyright without first declaring 'copyright'......
> >> 
> > You can't collect damages beyond "actual harm" unless a copyright is
> > registered (in the US).  But pretty much everything that can be covered
> > by copyright is automatically covered with copyright upon creation.
> > 
> Something that needs light here - is that just because
> "everything is copyrighted"..or.."someone holds a commercial copyright"
> STILL does in no way mean that you might not "be allowed" the use.
> There is also the fact of " granted permission "..&.. "permission sought"
> in the former, the permission is granted and "it's yours" - period.

Clearly not the case for "Crazy in Love - Beyonce.MP3"

> In the latter, you need only 'make a valid attempt' to contact the holder
> and IF* you were unable to assertain their contact info the "fair use"
> will come back into play.

Fair use does not include distribution.  If you don't have permission from
the copyright holder to distribute, "making a valid attempt" isn't going
to give it to you.  Even if it did, a "valid attempt" to identify the
copyright holder for "Crazy in Love - Beyonce.MP3" would quickly turn up
the contact informatoin.
-- 
Dale J. Stephenson
dalestephenson@mac.com
3/27/87 -- Ed Hearn for David Cone.  12/20/02 -- Millwood for Estrada
Schuerholz has finally topped himself.
0
dalestephenson
9/19/2003 8:29:12 PM
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) writes:

> In article <m37k45ifi8.fsf@mac.com>,
> Dale J. Stephenson <dalestephenson@mac.com> wrote:
> >The World Wide Wade <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> writes:
> >
> >> In article <m3ad92jh0n.fsf@mac.com>,
> >>  dalestephenson@mac.com (Dale J. Stephenson) wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Copyright infringement doesn't meet the legal definition of theft, but for
> >> > common usage steal works well.  When Apple put "Don't Steal Music" stickers
> >> > on their iPods, they confused no one who did not wish to be confused.
> >> 
> >> I don't think "steal" works well at all. It's not stealing just because the 
> >> RIAA uses the word that way. And of course Apple doesn't confuse anyone 
> >> with their stickers; we've become accustomed to language abuse. The issue 
> >> is copyright violation; it doesn't need to be dumbed down with 
> >> cops-and-robbers talk. 
> >> 
> >If everyone understands, it's perfectly valid language.  "Don't infringe
> >copyright" would be more confusing to the masses IMO, even though more correct.
> 
> The term "theft" isn't being used because it is less confusing.  It's
> being used to deliberately confuse the issue.  The term "piracy" was
> invented for propaganda purposes, but at least no one confuses
> copyright infringement with piracy on the high seas.  The RIAA, by
> their use of the term, IS trying to assert that ordinary theft and
> copyright infringement are one and the same, when that simply isn't
> so; for one thing, the penalties for theft are much smaller.

The penalties are only relevant for legal purposes.  For usage purposes,
"Don't Steal Music" is not confusing.

Are you going to get on Shakespeare's case for Iago's little speech
about "he who steals my good name"?  Legally, that would be slander, not
theft.
-- 
Dale J. Stephenson
dalestephenson@mac.com
3/27/87 -- Ed Hearn for David Cone.  12/20/02 -- Millwood for Estrada
Schuerholz has finally topped himself.
0
dalestephenson
9/19/2003 8:38:00 PM
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) writes:

> In article <m3pthwhinf.fsf@mac.com>,
> Dale J. Stephenson <dalestephenson@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >Ignorance of the law is not a defense in either civil or criminal
> >court.  Being poor is usually a good practical defense in civil court.  
> >"Never, never sue poor people"--Steve Dallas.  Of course, the RIAA is 
> >willing to lose money suing poor people for the hopeful chilling effect 
> >on the vast hordes that didn't get sued.
> 
> Ideally, the RIAA would like to drive the most sympathetic person in
> the country into utter poverty in order to chill the vast hordes.
> It's sort of the legal equivalent of threatening to drown a puppy a
> day if you don't get your way.
> 
More like drowning the cutest puppy of the 500 that are killing your
lawn as an object lesson.  The RIAA isn't targeting innocents, just
making an example of one of the guilty.  (Note -- killing the puppy
won't work.)
-- 
Dale J. Stephenson
dalestephenson@mac.com
3/27/87 -- Ed Hearn for David Cone.  12/20/02 -- Millwood for Estrada
Schuerholz has finally topped himself.
0
dalestephenson
9/19/2003 8:41:18 PM
Dale J. Stephenson proclaimed 9/19/03 3:29 PM:

> King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Dale J. Stephenson proclaimed 9/19/03 11:01 AM:
>> 
>>> cams0ft@hotmail.com (Aaron mC) writes:
>>> [snip]
>>>> Except that the bunch of MP3s I downloaded the other day didn't
>>>> mention any such thing.  If a file is called 'Crazy in Love -
>>>> Beyonce.MP3' how am I supposed to know if it's copyright or not?  How
>>>> am I supposed to know if that particular piece of music was made for
>>>> profit just by looking at a file name?  I doubt you can enforce a
>>>> copyright without first declaring 'copyright'......
>>>> 
>>> You can't collect damages beyond "actual harm" unless a copyright is
>>> registered (in the US).  But pretty much everything that can be covered
>>> by copyright is automatically covered with copyright upon creation.
>>> 
>> Something that needs light here - is that just because
>> "everything is copyrighted"..or.."someone holds a commercial copyright"
>> STILL does in no way mean that you might not "be allowed" the use.
>> There is also the fact of " granted permission "..&.. "permission sought"
>> in the former, the permission is granted and "it's yours" - period.
> 
> Clearly not the case for "Crazy in Love - Beyonce.MP3"
> 
>> In the latter, you need only 'make a valid attempt' to contact the holder
>> and IF* you were unable to assertain their contact info the "fair use"
>> will come back into play.
> 
> Fair use does not include distribution.  If you don't have permission from
> the copyright holder to distribute, "making a valid attempt" isn't going
> to give it to you.  Even if it did, a "valid attempt" to identify the
> copyright holder for "Crazy in Love - Beyonce.MP3" would quickly turn up
> the contact informatoin.

Once again you try to "meld and distort" file sharring into
'pirating & selling via mass distribution'.. the distribution violation
that you are referring to does not apply to "P2P".

Regardless of that preliminary distinction, once a person has
contact info and then makes a valid attempt to contact
the � holder..it's encombant upon the �holder to answer.
If no answer is recieved, once again the situation plays back
into the "fair use" level.
You can find all that out reading the copyright laws, you know.
There is more than ten ways to skin that cat - this ranting
and raging by the RIAA is just as stupid as when they banned
taverns & bars in California in "90 from playing �music recordings
over the house stereos.  That lasted about 6weeks at some of the
bars i went to.. HAA!!

"The music is made for the PEOPLE"
w
K

0
King
9/19/2003 8:51:56 PM
In article <BB90A2FC.BD93%hopestarrr@hotmail.com>,
 King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >> Except that the bunch of MP3s I downloaded the other day didn't
> >> mention any such thing.  If a file is called 'Crazy in Love -
> >> Beyonce.MP3' how am I supposed to know if it's copyright or not?
> > 
> > Um. Because copyright exists automatically, whether it's declared or
> > not. Did the owner of the rights to that performance grant you a license
> > to it? No. Did such download fall within the traditional bounds of fair
> > use? No. (Arguably discounting the situation where you already had it in
> > another medium.)
> > 
> You're "hung up" in RIAA mentallity using terms like (quote you):
> "fall within the traditional bounds of fair use?.."

Incorrect. I am very distinctly not hung up on the RIAA's mentality. 
Their concept of fair use is much narrower than the traditional bounds. 
_You_ seem to be hung up on the idea that the RIAA is bad (which is 
true) and anyone they go after being good (which is not). Both sides of 
an argument may be in error.

> You ofcourse answer NO.. but it's an oxymoron term to start with
> since MP3's and P2P let alone PC's being used as STEREOS & VCR's
> isn't ANYTHING TRADITIONAL to be found in the 'outdated book'.
> 
> In otherwords -- MP3's & P2P... *is* covered under fair use.

No, it's not. Not as a blanket proposition. I'm sorry, but to claim that 
it is is just a lie. I can't even sugar-coat it.

G
0
Gregory
9/19/2003 9:24:25 PM
In article <BB90A1BE.BD92%hopestarrr@hotmail.com>,
 King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Gregory Weston proclaimed 9/19/03 11:09 AM:
> 
> > In article <BB900B1C.BD68%hopestarrr@hotmail.com>,
> > King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> APPLE is trying to launch a MUSIC STORE -- NOW.!. --- but were they
> >> so self righteous before that??? -- where was their shame then?
> >> Did they run adds calling P2P members theives BEFORE opening shop??
> >> HAA!!!  -- not hardly  ; )
> > 
> > Actually, before iTMS, they _were_ issuing statements to discourage
> > music piracy that were appropriate to the tools and software they had at
> > the time.
> > 
> > G
> I'm not about to change my point on APPLE - at the very least
> they are hypocritical and it's all VERY "tongue-in-cheek"..isn't it?!?
> I think so  ; )

I disagree. They warned against copyright violation and they took 
reasonable measures to prevent casual distribution. Nothing 
tongue-in-cheek about it.


>   And i'm usually quite good at hyphenations.. but WTF is "iTMS".??

iTunes Music Store.

G
0
Gregory
9/19/2003 9:28:28 PM
Gregory Weston proclaimed 9/19/03 4:28 PM:

> In article <BB90A1BE.BD92%hopestarrr@hotmail.com>,
> King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Gregory Weston proclaimed 9/19/03 11:09 AM:
>> 
>>> In article <BB900B1C.BD68%hopestarrr@hotmail.com>,
>>> King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> APPLE is trying to launch a MUSIC STORE -- NOW.!. --- but were they
>>>> so self righteous before that??? -- where was their shame then?
>>>> Did they run adds calling P2P members theives BEFORE opening shop??
>>>> HAA!!!  -- not hardly  ; )
>>> 
>>> Actually, before iTMS, they _were_ issuing statements to discourage
>>> music piracy that were appropriate to the tools and software they had at
>>> the time.
>>> 
>>> G
>> I'm not about to change my point on APPLE - at the very least
>> they are hypocritical and it's all VERY "tongue-in-cheek"..isn't it?!?
>> I think so  ; )
> 
> I disagree. They warned against copyright violation and they took
> reasonable measures to prevent casual distribution. Nothing
> tongue-in-cheek about it.
> 
> 
>> And i'm usually quite good at hyphenations.. but WTF is "iTMS".??
> 
> iTunes Music Store.
> 
> G

Granted - this's where some people just can't see
the forest for the trees.
They fail to see such as APPLE's BS "don't steal music" warnings
or "coaxings" .. as just plain hypocritical epostulating. But it is.
No one can deny the conflict of interest in the fact that APPLE
has long been engineering ground and openly encouraging SW developers
to the MP3 and many other formats QD2 ..etc.,etc.
  But what exposing them  as the Emporer's clothes
is the very fact that they specifically designed the *iPOD* a piece
of hardware that does nothing but "encourage users" to obtain MP3's
for FREE USE and DISTRIBUTION (amongst friends ofcourse.! ; )

APPLE's politics make you laff.. like watching Clint Eastwood saying:
".. Nothing wrong with guns?? --long as the right people get shot.? .."

APPLE knows that all the MP3's that will be put on iPOD's
will NOT be MP3's that are "RIAA approved" - but they're selling iPODs
and they could actually care less that they know FULL WELL they're
part & party to adding to the "so called" problem. That's hypocritical.

It's not the worst thing in the world - no??
But don't try to BS everybody that APPLE's "sqeaky white clean".
HAA!
w
K

0
King
9/20/2003 3:09:42 AM
In article <m3smmsh5uf.fsf@mac.com>,
 dalestephenson@mac.com (Dale J. Stephenson) wrote:

> Are you going to get on Shakespeare's case for Iago's little speech
> about "he who steals my good name"?  Legally, that would be slander, not
> theft.

Absurd analogy.
0
The
9/20/2003 5:21:22 AM
In article <BB912F26.BDF2%hopestarrr@hotmail.com>,
 King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> wrote:

>   But what exposing them  as the Emporer's clothes
> is the very fact that they specifically designed the *iPOD* a piece
> of hardware that does nothing but "encourage users" to obtain MP3's
> for FREE USE and DISTRIBUTION (amongst friends ofcourse.! ; )

Utter tosh. I have an iPod. It has free space on it. I'm feeling no 
compulsion whatsoever to go out an download music to which I don't have 
a license to consume that space. It's for bringing the music I already 
have with me.

> APPLE knows that all the MP3's that will be put on iPOD's
> will NOT be MP3's that are "RIAA approved" - but they're selling iPODs
> and they could actually care less that they know FULL WELL they're
> part & party to adding to the "so called" problem. That's hypocritical.

This is some strange definition of hypocritical of which I was not 
previously aware.

G
0
Gregory
9/20/2003 11:27:43 AM
King Neptune <hopestarrr@hotmail.com> writes:

[...]
> Granted - this's where some people just can't see
> the forest for the trees.
> They fail to see such as APPLE's BS "don't steal music" warnings
> or "coaxings" .. as just plain hypocritical epostulating. But it is.
> No one can deny the conflict of interest in the fact that APPLE
> has long been engineering ground and openly encouraging SW developers
> to the MP3 and many other formats QD2 ..etc.,etc.

What has this to do with P2P?  Software developers cannot get away
with selling software with unlicensed music.  Besides, Apple's
promoting AAC, which can be DRMed.

>   But what exposing them  as the Emporer's clothes
> is the very fact that they specifically designed the *iPOD* a piece
> of hardware that does nothing but "encourage users" to obtain MP3's
> for FREE USE and DISTRIBUTION (amongst friends ofcourse.! ; )
> 
No, the iPod is designed to store/play a lot of compressed music.  It comes
with a "Don't Share Music" sticker and is designed to make it inconvenient
to use as an MP3 transfer design.  The 10 GB model stores about
2500 songs (less if you compress at a higher resolution).  That's only
~250 CDs, which is hardly rare.
[...]
> APPLE knows that all the MP3's that will be put on iPOD's
> will NOT be MP3's that are "RIAA approved" - but they're selling iPODs
> and they could actually care less that they know FULL WELL they're
> part & party to adding to the "so called" problem. That's hypocritical.
> 
Apple's tools (iTunes and iPod) are useful whether you steal music or
not.  They have taken small steps to address the problem (making iPod
MP3s not show up on the desktop, slapping a "Don't Steal Music" on the
iPod, protected AAC files from iTMS).  This is like saying the car
manufacturers are part & party of the speeding problem because they make
cars capable of exceeding the speed limit.
-- 
Dale J. Stephenson
dalestephenson@mac.com
3/27/87 -- Ed Hearn for David Cone.  12/20/02 -- Millwood for Estrada
Schuerholz has finally topped himself.
0
dalestephenson
9/20/2003 1:12:08 PM
The World Wide Wade <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> writes:

> In article <m3smmsh5uf.fsf@mac.com>,
>  dalestephenson@mac.com (Dale J. Stephenson) wrote:
> 
> > Are you going to get on Shakespeare's case for Iago's little speech
> > about "he who steals my good name"?  Legally, that would be slander, not
> > theft.
> 
> Absurd analogy.

It's not an analogy at all.  (It's not even the same usage as "steal music",
as Iago's case is depriving without getting, while P2P is getting without
depriving.)

What it is is an *example* that steal has been applied to situations that
don't fit the legal definition of theft LONG before the RIAA.
-- 
Dale J. Stephenson
dalestephenson@mac.com
3/27/87 -- Ed Hearn for David Cone.  12/20/02 -- Millwood for Estrada
Schuerholz has finally topped himself.
0
dalestephenson
9/20/2003 1:14:58 PM
Dale J. Stephenson proclaimed 9/20/03 8:12 AM:

> This is like saying the car
> manufacturers are part & party of the speeding problem because they make
> cars capable of exceeding the speed limit.
> -- 
You hang yourself again - YES!! - yes they are.!
Any "advanced" mechanic will tell you that there exists
mechanisims which have long been in use known as "speed governors".
But the government "continues to look the other way" just like
with enforcing *every 99th copyright law* - and forget the rest.
 Great analogy too.. THANKS!! -- all one need do is be reminded
that **exessive speed** accounts for a major part of vehicle fatalities.
Fatalities.....that each year KILL MORE PEOPLE
THAN THE ENTIRE VIETNAM WAR.!. --now ask yourself if
Do you think the CAR CORPS give one holy shit.???

The answer is a flat out " NO..." - NO because they're
too busy selling "'..Volkswagons & *iPODS*.."".
HAAAA!!
w
K

0
King
9/20/2003 5:10:51 PM
Dale J. Stephenson proclaimed 9/20/03 8:14 AM:

> The World Wide Wade <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> writes:
> 
>> In article <m3smmsh5uf.fsf@mac.com>,
>> dalestephenson@mac.com (Dale J. Stephenson) wrote:
>> 
>>> Are you going to get on Shakespeare's case for Iago's little speech
>>> about "he who steals my good name"?  Legally, that would be slander, not
>>> theft.
>> 
>> Absurd analogy.
> 
> It's not an analogy at all.  (It's not even the same usage as "steal music",
<snipo>
yeahhh h -- is sheer idiocy is what ; )
w
K

0
King
9/20/2003 5:13:45 PM
In article <bjr7o1$mbi5q$2@ID-134476.news.uni-berlin.de>,
 Dave Hinz <davehinz@spamcop.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:22:15 GMT, v1r0b1k@despammed.com 
> <v1r0b1k@despammed.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 22:48:07 UTC, John Steinberg <seesig@bottom.invalid>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> I'm afraid you may have a very tenuous grasp on how the RIAA is 
> >> functioning here. 
> > 
> > Proof of innocence is still a valid defense.
> 
> In the USA, it's "innocent until proven guilty" for criminal issues,
> and "A preponderance of evidence" for civil issues.  That's why OJ was
> found guilty in civil court, but not "guilty enough" in criminal.
> 
> Proving one's innocence is a leftover from the days of the Spanish
> Inquisition (which, of course, noooooobody expects!).  

Seriously this is a leftover from the way Western courts were originally 
set up.  In fact in their day the Inquisition courts were far better than 
the secular courts; it was not uncommon for prisoners to blaspheme simply 
to get moved from a secular to an Inquisitional court.

Unlike the secular courts there were strict rules on torture and some 
Inquisition courts even provided you your own defence attorney free of 
charge - something the US itself would not make the standard until the 20th 
century.

The bad press the Inquisition courts have was largely  due to the very 
successful propoganda campaign made Protestant countries (who were just as 
much into witch and heratic burnings as anybody else of the time) which 
were later used during the Enlightment period,
0
Bruce
9/28/2003 10:35:16 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Can older Mac 68K apps be converted to FAT or PPC apps to run on PPCs?
Can someone explain the difficulty level to do this? I have an obsolete form filler application that is only for 68K Macs. How much trouble is it to convert? Robert Hovland <ranospamhovland@earthlink.net> writes: > Can someone explain the difficulty level to do this? I have an obsolete > form filler application that is only for 68K Macs. How much trouble is > it to convert? As I understand it, updating your code and building a Carbon version of your app isn't too much trouble. Carbon is essentially just a newer version of the class Toolbox API, so Carbonating your app won't be nearly as much work as creating a completely "foreign" port would be. On the other hand, you *do* need to have the source code for the app, and you *will* need to do some updating of it and build a Carbon version. As far as I know, there is no "converter" that will easily magically a 68K app into a modern app with no programming needed. sherm-- -- Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org In article <ranospamhovland-BA1FB0.12265508082005@news.west.earthlink.net>, Robert Hovland <ranospamhovland@earthlink.net> wrote: > Can someone explain the difficulty level to do this? I have an obsolete > form filler application that is only for 68K Macs. How much trouble is > it to convert? Probably little-or-none if you've got the so...

com.sys.mac.apps
www.freeservice6.blogspot.com ...

Who can tell me how can i change the parameters from sys to digital sys?
I have the transfer model G , and the PID transfer model (t1*s+1)*(t2*s+1)/[(t3*s+1)*(t4*s+1)]. Please tell me how can i get the digital PID parameters, as kp, ki, kd? Thanks. ...

Can Mac apps be launched from shell?
What I'm trying to do is pop up a window from a Makefile, with a particular app running on a particular file. For example, on my linux box I have several PS/PDF apps installed, and I can run a shell command like: gv foo.ps & This causes ghostview to open a window and display the contents of foo.ps, as one might expect. On my Mac (PB, 10.3.8), all I've ever found to do is start a viewer (acrobat, preview, whatever) by hand, laboriously walk through the directories to where I'm doing the make, scroll down to the file name, and click on it. Then, after another make, I have ...

Mac
Hi, I have written a service to launch our wxWidgets Application when the user selects the menu item in the Services menu. The wxWidgets Application is configured to accept command line parameters when starting from the terminal window. I am launching the wxWidgets Application using Mac Launch Services call LSOpenFromURLSpec. I created an apple event descriptor (AEDesc) and added the parameters to pass into the AEDesc for the launch spec. This is not working, the application will launch but the parameters are ignored. Do I need to add an impementation in the wxMyApp::MacOpenFile to...

Can any Mac apps dial a phone number?
Wondering if any apps like Address Book or iCal or non-Apple ones have the option so you could highlight a number and a keyboard shortcut would initiate dialing. Ultimately, the app would work so any number highlighted in any program could be dialed. Of course you'd need a phone modem. If you're dialing lots of numbers a day, and they are all on your computer, this would save time and make life easier I would think. In article <noemailhere-754ACB.12441908062008@news.mts.net>, The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote: > Wondering if any apps like Address Boo...

Going... Going... Going...
It seems that a lot of my List-O-Wares has been claimed. Will update ASAP Evif wrote: > > It seems that a lot of my List-O-Wares has been claimed. Will update ASAP Rather than "spamming" this group, why not keep your posts confined to ONE thread, hey ?!?! ...

Can RSU non-SWC apps, but not SWC!
I tried downloading older versions of non-SWC RSU fixpacks, and low and behold, the RSU worked! When I tried to download DD3 or the latest CP fixpack, no go! What the hell is the deal? I enter my SWC info, it starts up then gives me the same old shit, RSU is out of date, just when it said it was up to date? Does anyone know how to get around this? CountFloyd@NO-SPAM.adelphia.net wrote: > I tried downloading older versions of non-SWC RSU fixpacks, and low and > behold, the RSU worked! When I tried to download DD3 or the latest CP > fixpack, no go! What the hell is the deal? I e...

Mac and non Mac Partition
Hello, I want to use my mac to copy some files to mp3 players or other portable stup. The problem for instance in a Fat16 partion the mac write some "._blahblah" files. And some player doesn't like these file and get frozen. I have to plug the player (or it's memory card) to a Pc, the remove these file in order to make it working. Is there a way to avoid this ? Thanks John In article <4a4cc7f2$0$12658$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>, John <NoSpam@NoSpam.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I want to use my mac to copy some files to mp3 players or other portable ...

can't go over 640x480 in non-root
hello all I've been having a problem on my secondary computer in which no user BUT root can get anything over 640x480 when X is up. more specifically, i have it set to load kdm to provide a graphical login screen, but that won't go over 640x480 either... i'm somewhat lost, and realize this is probably not enough info. if you need more info, please post a response. i DON'T wanna be running root all the time... using Gentoo with kernel 2.6.13-rc3 users: root, xero -- --Xero Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80040e14' [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server D...

Can to make work an app. in mac 10.3.9
What will do to make work an application in mac 10.3.9,( The application devoloped in mac 10.4 [in cocoa]) Please help Excuse my language With thanks Yabber "Yabber" <eyabber@gmail.com> writes: > What will do to make work an application in mac 10.3.9,( The > application devoloped in mac 10.4 [in cocoa]) In general: 1. Build it using the 10.3 SDK, which is included with Xcode. 2. Don't use any 10.4-specific APIs. Pay special attention to the note about availability included in the documentation for each method. For details, have a look at Apple's "Cross-Development Programming Guide": http://developer.apple.com/documentation/DeveloperTools/Conceptual/cross_development/index.html http://preview.tinyurl.com/4vzzy sherm-- -- Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net Sherm Pendley <spamtrap@dot-app.org> wrote: > "Yabber" <eyabber@gmail.com> writes: > >> What will do to make work an application in mac 10.3.9,( The >> application devoloped in mac 10.4 [in cocoa]) > > In general: > > 1. Build it using the 10.3 SDK, which is included with Xcode. > > 2. Don't use any 10.4-specific APIs. Pay special attention to the note about > availability included in the documentation for each method. And it should be obvious but isn'...

Can to make work an app. in mac 10.3.9
What will do to make work an application in mac 10.3.9,( The application devoloped in mac 10.4 [in cocoa]) Please help Excuse my language With thanks Yabber In article <1164212926.888705.83770@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Yabber" <eyabber@gmail.com> wrote: > What will do to make work an application in mac 10.3.9,( The > application devoloped in mac 10.4 [in cocoa]) Just because it was developed in 10.4 doesn't mean that it won't work in 10.3.9. But if it was designed to work only in 10.4 or later, I don't know of any way to get it to work in...

Go Vista Go!!! GO GO!!
Vista the number 1 selling OS of ALL TIME!!!!!!!!!!! wooohoooooooooooo Welcome to comp.sys.vista.envy Enjoy your stay! ...

Can't send email from Mac App. Mail
Have Graphite G4, running Panther 10.3.9 Have 2 websites on 2 different accounts. There are 3 emails on account #1, 2 emails on account #2. For the last few days, I cannot send mail out of any of them. It just goes to send then after maybe 2 mins a failure with a box that says: ----- MESSAGE DELIVERY FAILED The connection to the server "mail.domainname.com.au" on port 25 timed out. You can try to send using a different server. All messages will use this server until you quit or change your network settings. Send message using: {suggests another server ---- I try the other se...

Can't print from any app. in Mac OS X
A computer here was recently upgraded with HP's LaserJet 2300 drivers. Afterwards, it's no longer possible to print from any application. If you choose Print from anything, the system churns for a couple seconds, then the application "unexpectedly quits." I picked up Print Center Repair (the system is running 10.2.8) and even went so far as to completely reset the print environment, but it didn't help. What else is there to do, short of re- installing the OS? Thanks, Mike -- Michael T. Davis | Systems Specialist: ChE,MSE E-mail: davism@...

You can now run Android apps on a Mac or PC with Google Chrome
Thanks to Bluesnews.com http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/3/8339197/android-apps-on-windows-mac-linux-chrome-os (\__/) (='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your (")_(") signature to help him gain world domination. ...

Java app on Mac -- can't select input method
I have a java application that I'm trying to run on a Mac (Powerbook G5). When trying to enter Chinese text into a text field, it's not allowing me to switch input methods. "Simplified Chinese" is an option in the language dropdown, but selecting it does nothing. This seems to be isolated to my application -- other applications let me switch just fine. Is there some way to "register" this application as allowing Chinese input? AdTHANKSvance, Mark In article <c754e412.0402052132.63262bfa@posting.google.com>, mschnitzius@hotmail.com (Hegemony Cricket) wro...

How can I make a non-kde app flash in kde system tray?
Hi everybody! I'd like to know if there is a way to make a system tray menu item flash, just like the option of system notifications. The thing is, that the application is not a kde one, so I cannot select it in the Control Center System Notifications. Perhaps there is a way to do this via DCOP? Thanx in advance. ...

Can to make work an app. in mac 10.3.9 #2
What will do to make work an application in mac 10.3.9,( The application devoloped in mac 10.4 [in cocoa]) Please help Excuse my language With thanks Yabber ...

Can I 'see' what's going on with a LAN Mac?
Is there a way that I can actualy see what is going on (Live) on another mac on our LAN? Like to see what's on the monitor of the Mac in the other room. I guess I cold run another video cable from there, but it's not worth the hassle. DaveC In article <goldfern-F16A55.23320531082004@news.isp.giganews.com>, Dave <goldfern@kalama.com> wrote: > Is there a way that I can actualy see what is going on (Live) on another mac > on > our LAN? Like to see what's on the monitor of the Mac in the other room. I > guess I cold run another video cable from there, bu...

Can blue-and-white Mac G3s running OS X go to sleep?
Can blue-and-white Mac G3s running OS X go to sleep? I just bought one used, and the seller told me it could. Seems to me, well, it isn't. After it's allegedly asleep it makes just as much noise as when it wasn't asleep, which makes me suspicious. Or is it asleep but the fan's still running? If it truly isn't sleeping, should I shut it off at night, or leave it on? Thanks in advance! Bailey Legull <pluto@quentincrisp.com> wrote: > Can blue-and-white Mac G3s running OS X go to sleep? No. See the section on deep sleep at the bottom of the fo...

You can now run Android apps on a Mac or PC with Google Chrome #2
Thanks to Bluesnews.com http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/3/8339197/android-apps-on-windows-mac-linux-chrome-os (\__/) (='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your (")_(") signature to help him gain world domination. ...

computers CAN NOT PLAY GO! Or can?
""One million dollar reward is mentioned, however, nobady can program a computer for a level of 1-dan, for now!"" *********************************************************************** "One minute to learn, one lifetime to master." Go is a wonderfull game. There is about 10^750 different ways to finish a go match. In chess, this number is about 10^100. You should learn GO! Can computers learn this game? ------------------------------------------------------- To learn about go: kgs.kiseido.com www.goproblems.com ...

Speed-Up.app from Mac App Store
Has anyone purchased, or know anything about, Speed-Up.app, which is available from the Mac App Store? (This is not an iPhone app.) It looks like it would be useful to me for playing back songs in iTunes at variable speeds, but I can't find any documentation for it to even see how it works. The Mac App Store info says it works with 10.5+, but it hasn't been updated since Jan 2011. The link to "Speed-Up Support" is broken but it does get you to a site that advertises Speed-Up as an iTunes plug-in. However, there's remarkably little there about Speed-Up, s...

Web resources about - Can the RIAA go after non-sharers? - comp.sys.mac.apps

Resources last updated: 3/1/2016 6:37:33 AM