On 6 Jul 2005 17:38:31 -0700, "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> was
understood to have stated the following:

Avoidance of answering the question noted.

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 21:47:13 -0700, Not A Speck Of Cereal
<XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> was understood to have stated the
following:

"But the music should be free!!!"

<sarcastic imitation of 10 year old mode off>

David W. Poole, Jr. wrote:


And a handy utility it is. You should have given the URL

--
dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

David W. Poole, Jr. wrote:
'Stealing music' is a myth perpetuated by the fascist recording
industry to ensure they retain their 'right' to shove their products up
the consumers asses on their own terms.

David W. Poole, Jr. wrote:
'Stealing music' is a myth perpetuated by the fascist recording
industry to ensure they retain their 'right' to shove their products up
the consumers asses on their own terms.

On 7 Jul 2005 05:41:47 -0700, name said...

Use of such transparent and fallacious rhetoric ("fascist recording
industry"? Right.) not to mention your complete inability to state your
case without resorting to vulgarity, insult and ad hominem attack is a
large reason many people who are "undecided" on this issue will end up
supporting the exact people you seek to discredit with your attacks.

IOW, your cause would be much better served if you just shut the fuck up.

HTH.

--
CQ

David W. Poole, Jr. wrote:
Yes, copyright law is a moronic misconception. It's an obsolete and
redundant invention from the previous century, when the distribution of
information was up to a limited number of centralized distributors who
didn't like unfair competition.
These centralized distributors realize they are the contemporary
equivalent of dinosaurs on the brink of extinction and frantically try
to maintain their fading power by harassing and intimidating consumers
into total submission.

There was no copyright when the first books were copied manually by
monks and it doesn't make sense to think of those monks as pirates who
were stealing books by copying them manually. Likewise, it doesn't make
any sense whatsoever to think of someone who exchanges files online as
a pirate and a thief. The people who like to perpetuate such myths have
their head stuck up their ass and fail to grasp the basics of
information technology.

People who think sharing information is a bad idea should get the hell
off the internet.
Your argument could also have been used to prohibit petrol engines to
ensure people who are in the business of producing steam engines ought
to keep their job. Technological innovation entails sometimes people
have to find a different job when they are involved in a branch of
industry that has been
made obscolete by technological developments.
Musicians have been making a living from music long before the
recording industry arrived and will continue to prosper as the
recording industry fades into oblivion. A street musician can reach a
limited public who happens to walk by on the street, while an internet
musician can peddle his creative output to a virtually unlimited
audience.

If you share things with others, others might share things with you.
When you have friends over, what possible reason would you have for
playing music to them when they have not properly payed for it?
Do you prefer to enjoy music in solitary confinement?

Free your ass and your mind will follow!

CQ wrote:
Ah... and when you kindly request people to shut the fuck up I suppose
you aren't resorting to vulgarity, insult and ad hominem attack?

On 7 Jul 2005 06:21:58 -0700, name said...

Complete evasion and attempted deflection noted. You really don't have
much to go on aside from classic (and weak) logical fallacy, do you?

But here ya go, an answer:

Actually, since it was not directed at you (IE: "why don't you shut the
fuck up") but was phrased as simple advice (IE: "you would be better
served to just shut the fuck up") about helping your cause or hurting it,
no, it is none of the above.

It may indeed be considered vulgar by some but it is simply a form of
informal speech in my circle of friends and if you, who has repeatedly
used vulgarity and crude insult were to claim to be offended by it then
you would only be adding "blatant hypocrite" to the list of endearing
traits you have so far displayed.

--
CQ

On 7 Jul 2005 06:16:35 -0700, name said...

And that is a senseless statement that actually has NO meaning. The
copyright codes exist and are not a "misconception" in any way shape or
form.

I hardly think you are in a position to judge the "moronic" part.

You sure about that? You have any idea what you are on about or are you
just trying to now sound informed?

Copyright law stems directly from the 15th century. Kind of blows the
rest of your "informed opinion" out of the water, doesn't it?

<snip further nonsensical attempt to appear informed>

Please, if you value the free exchange of information and want to see the
perpetuation or even further growth of file sharing, do not feel the need
to take an active part in the arguments. You are doing more harm here
than good.

--
CQ

Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote:
Ah, so people who buy and sell things are morally superior to people
who share and exchange things for free?
Do you think libraries should only lend books to people they know will
buy the book if they want their own copy?
Should radiostations only play music to people they know will buy the
music
if they want their own copy?

What's the fundamental difference between someone who records a song on
tape from the radio for personal use and someone who downloads a song
from the internet for personal use?
The former is legal ('timeshifting'), the latter is illegal ('music
theft') and yet there isn't any rationale whatsoever behind this
legislative distinction.

Somehow you presume it's illegal for me to make a copy. Actually, since
I live in the Netherlands and copyright laws, although equally moronic,
are fundamentally different here, I can't even make an illegal copy of
music even if I wanted to. Any music I download online is legal,
regardless where it comes from.
This may sound moronic, and it is moronic, but that's the law (as far
as copyright in the Netherlands is concerned)!

Legislation is not infallible. If the government would ban thought,
would you stop thinking?
I'm not saying people should ignore laws completely, but they certainly
shouldn't take them for granted either. Most laws are fairly arbitrary
and irrational.

CQ wrote:
It seems like you could definitely benefit from taking a few courses on
logic and argumentation.

Next time you phrase a simple advice, try posting it in a separate
topic instead of replying to people, which gives the impression of the
advice being directed at the person you're responding to.

First you bitch about vulgarity and then you claim any vulgarity on
your part is simply a form of informal speech in your circle of
friends?
I think you have sufficiently demonstrated by now you're unable to
utter more than a handful of sentences without contradicting yourself.

CQ wrote:
You can make a law that states that the earth is flat and burn or
imprison anyone who claims otherwise. Such laws would be equally
misconceived as contemporary copyright legislation.

"While monopolies in general were certainly conceived of well before
the invention of the printing press, copyright in particular does not
appear to have been developed as a concept until then."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig...y_of_copyright

name wrote:

Unless, of course, one earns one's living by creating intellectual
material.
____________

"Sharing" music has nothing to do with the distribution of information.
_______________

Steam engines are one thing, gasoline another and neither have any thing
to do with information or copyrights. You think the gasoline engine (or
steam) isn't/wasn't covered by patents?

--
dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

name wrote:
For one thing, the broadcasting of the music was bought and paid for by
the radio station. In the US at least.
_________________

But not in many other places.
________________

To the contrary...law is seldom arbitrary and usually rational.

--
dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

dadiOH wrote:
Most music shared online has also been paid for at some point.
People don't raid a record store in order to share music online.
Most people BUY music and share it with others.

Copyright laws differ for various countries, although Dutch copyright
law might be rather peculiar.

Tell that to minorities like gays, potsmokers, etc...
History is full of examples of unjust laws (like legislation concerning
racial segregation, slavery, etc).

dadiOH wrote:
There are many people making a living by creating intellectual material
who acknowledge that copyright stifles creativity.
Brian Eno and Chuck-D (from Public Enemy) to name a few.

Sure it does. If I have music online and somebody downloads this music
from me, I'm *sharing* music with that person. The internet is nothing
more than a network to distribute and exchange information.

The issue is that technological developments imply that older forms of
technology become obsolete and redundant. Patents are not intended to
(and will not) prevent such developments.

name wrote:
Music isn't information.
_______________

Music - and the selling of same - isn't exactly a technology. If you
refer to the way it is distributed, then a change in that methodology
doesn't mean that the copyright should disappear.

Of course not, never said they would. What they *do* do is protect the
inventor's right to his creation while it is viable and marketable.


The fact remains that people want to profit from their creations whether
physical or intangible. And they should...the bucks are what drives
development. That's why there are laws most places protecting the
creators. "From each according to his ability and to each according to
his need" is not, never has been and most likely never will be a
workable way of living. Too many taking and not working now...

--
dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

dadiOH wrote:
Can't computers contain files that encode music in digital form?
Aren't such files instances of digital information?

Not necessarily, but are you claiming that technological developments
couldn't possibly make copyright obsolete and redundant (or even
counterproductive)?

Right and such viability and marketability is influenced by
technological developments. The traditional methodology of producing,
marketing and distributing music by the recording industry has been
made obsolete and redundant to a large extent by modern technology like
computer networks.

That is a very controversial and often disputed claim. In my opinion
it's not the bucks that drive the developments, but the desire to
contribute something worthwhile and the recognition and status derived
from these contributions. If money was the only possible motivation for
people to create things, there wouldn't be any free and open-source
software.
Laws cannot 'protect' creators from the consequences of technological
developments. Technological innovations like machinery, robots and
computers have been putting people out of work right from the start,
but that doesn't mean we ought to abandon the path of technological
innovation to protect their source for income at all costs.

As "David W. Poole, Jr." <STKR@microsoft.com> so eloquently put:
[] On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 21:25:32 -0700, Not A Speck Of Cereal
[] <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> was understood to have stated the
[] following:
[]
[] >
[] >Nawp. Nogannadoit. As I said earlier:
[] >
[] >"I've digitized all of my 1800 CDs (emails requesting me to share will
[] >be ignored--I paid for my CDs). Do they really expect me to rename all
[] >of the 20,000 MP3 files when there are perfectly good ID3 tags in
[] >them?"
[]
[] Yeah, I read what you said earlier. Evidently you don't understand
[] what dadiOH and I have suggested, but that's no big loss.

David, it's quite clear from my words that I do understand what you've
recommend, but choose not to do it. See below:

[] The solution
[] you're taking locks you into a very limited number of playback
[] devices.

Only in the flash form factor. I gave up those (and except them to
"grow up" in the OS now that they capacities are getting so high).

All of the larger form factor devices that I've seen have a smart
enough OS for this, which is why I ended up with a Creative Micro.

I've bought 6 devices in the past 6 weeks and looked at more in
evaluation, so I confident in my findings. Also, my 2+ year old Nomad
Jukebox does this fine too.

So the devices with dumbed down OSs are actually the ones in the
minority.

[] The solution suggested by dadiOH and I works for every device
[] you've encountered, or will encounter.

You realize, don't you, that your method is a basically work-around
for players lacking the ability to do something very simple. It's
really not what I would call a "solution".

It's your choice. As long as you're complacent here, you'll be happy I
guess. I assume that when you first started, they were all like that,
such as with the early Winamp releases. I remember being astonished to
find that, years and several major revs later, it was still that way,

[] The idea is not to rename the files on your hard drive, but to rename
[] them when you offload them to your portable device. Thus the 20,000
[] MP3 files are named fine for permanent storage. For temporary
[] (portable) storage files are renamed as proposed to make any of the
[] devices I offload my music to play them in the order that suits me.

It basically amounts to the same thing. Or worse yet, it may mean that
I rename the same files several times. Every time I want to listen to
Beatles Abbey Road, I have to rename the files as I upload it to the
device. It could conceivably mean that I rename my files more than the
number of files I have (do more than 20,000 renames) over the life of
the unit, if I use it enough.

But even if I bought off on that, it's not enough David, and I'll tell
you why: The Zen Micro (and Nomad Jukebox) allow you to browse and
search not just on file name with the number prepended to it, it's
smart about Artist, Album, and Genre as well.

[] Works wonders for me; I wrote a utility that allows me to off-load and
[] automatically rename the tracks in my WinAMP play list to any location
[] of my choosing, which is usually a memory card or 10. I don't have to
[] deal with the bulkiness/weight/battery/price issues of a HD based
[] player, and because both my PDA and my Lyra use SD cards, I have one
[] or two MP3 playback devices on me at all times.

Whatever works for you. The Zen Micro is small enough for me. I still
have my old flash player* for smaller periods of time, like when I mow
the lawn, but for short trips out of town when the Nomad Jukebox is
just too large, the Micro works fine.

* I might not have mentioned, but this cheapo 256MB device from MPIO
will play in track order, if you drag them over that way from Windows
Explorer. That's why I was surprised that much newer and more
expensive flash players from several manufactures couldn't be coaxed
to do it by any means.

Chris

--
" Say what you will about banjos, at least they aren't accordions."
-- A certain someone
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]