Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote:
Depends... sometimes black or dark grey, sometimes it's blue/cyan,
sometimes it's red/yellow/magenta.

I'll sign a slightly modified version of that statement:

I, "name", solemnly swear that I will never buy an audioCD again, until
copyrights are completely and unequivocally abolished. If I like the
music
I download, I'll go see the musicians in action when they give a live
concert locally.

Signed, "name".



I have already visited various live concerts of musicians that I
wouldn't even know about if it wasn't for my habit of exchanging music
online.
I've sold all my audioCDs (only about 100 of them) a long time ago and
there are no regrets whatsoever. If I ever buy audioCDs again, it's
only for decorational purposes.
It's perfectly legal for me to have a massive 25000 mp3 collection on
HD (the cosmic jukebox) despite owning a single audioCD.
Moreover, even though it's illegal for me to share all that stuff
online, I do that anyway and feel fully justified to break any law that
is so moronic it fails to acknowledge uploading is just the other side
of the same downloading coin.
Uploading being illegal while downloading is legal is equally
ridiculous as a law that allows people to buy milk while simultaneously
prohibiting people to sell milk.

Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote:
Sure, we're only at the start of this transition from more traditional
methods of marketing, producing and distributing music towards the free
online exchange of music.

The fascist recording industry has had their chance to change their
ways.
They thought they could keep shoving their products up the submissive
consumers ass until they run out of plastic or foil.
Now that they realize their end is near, they childishly resort to
futile harassment and intimidation tactics.

Wake up to the real world. Download DC++ and go to a large hub and see
for yourself. People are sharing music like never before and for every
p2p application that gets banned, 10 more powerful versions come back.
There is no way they can keep that tidal wave of "freedom to share"
back.
Any musician who realizes the benefits of having free access to all the
music ever produced so far will give up on copyrights and figure out
alternative ways to cash in on their popularity (should their music be
shared
online in significant quantities).

Legal, illegal... doesn't really matter. Alcohol was illegal at some
point and pot has been legal for most of the time. People will do as
they please and laws can only influence their behavior to the extent
that laws are intelligible to them and have a rational basis.
Copyright laws don't have such a rational basis and are the mere result
of the entertainment industry surreptitiously buying their way into the
government.

Your email address ends in "micro$oft.com" which explains most of your
moronic responses. I bet you work for those motherfuckers.
Oh well... I use windoze myself, but I'm sure glad I didn't pay for
that
garbage.

David W. Poole, Jr. wrote:
Hehehehe... I bet you'd claim micro$oft garbage is intellectual
property too, huh?

Hey, why not call them rapists or arsonists too?
People who share information online are raping the entertainment
industry and
setting them on fire too (metaphorically speaking).

Weak as my point may be, you seem unable to debunk it. The fact that
those books
are still freely available today doesn't detract from my remark that
copyright didn't apply to their book-copying activities.
Why don't you explain why those monks were not 'thieves' unlike people
who freely share information online today?

There is no difference. What kind of sharing of information did you
have in mind besides 'piracy of copyrighted works'?
Copyrights are intended to prevent the free sharing of information and
as such copyrights are not applicable to the internet, because 'freely
sharing information' is the whole point of the internet.

If we were so concerned about copyrights we shouldn't have invented
computers (let alone the internet) in the first place.

As an analogy, if you want to prevent murder, you should start by not
allowing guns to be sold at every street corner.

That is wishful thinking, plain and simple. If you create something and
intend to keep control over it, you shouldn't give/sell it to others.
There is no practical way
to enforce copyrights unless we agree to live in a fascist police state
with a control freak government.

Everybody is my friend (even my worst enemies are my friends, except
they don't realize it). I socialize with the whole world online. Your
social network might be rather limited, but most people online enjoy
making friends indiscriminately, regardless of
age, sex, race, income, location, etc...

Bring 'em on! :-)

name wrote:
Of course you can. Diamonds are scarce, bread isn't. Being scarce
doesn't create a demand, desire or need does. Rarity *may* increase
price depending upon demand.
___________________

Balderdash.
________________

Just plain silly.
__________________

Sorry, not true. Computers store/run on a binary condition...on/off.
Numbers don't exist on a computer. The "numbers" are simply the human
attribution to the state (binary condition) of some quantity of switches
taken as a unit.

--
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:

You really don't understand copyright, do you? In the US at least, the
creator of a work *automatically* has a copyright whether he wants it or
not. There is no such thing as "absense of copyright" outside of things
in the public domain.

__________________

They protect whoever owns the copyright.

--
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:
This thread would be more interesting if you got your facts straight
and/or knew what you were talking about.

--
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

On 7 Jul 2005 07:40:52 -0700, name quoted a wiki page...

That's quite funny. You have just quoted a passage that underlines my
point that your previous statement regarding copyright law ...

....is completely wrong.

Err, you DO realize that the printing press was invented in the mid 15th
century, which gives credence to my own statement of

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

Thanks for your help. Priceless.

--
CQ

"dadiOH" <dadiOH@wherever.com> wrote in message
news:O0Hze.520$ao6.156@trnddc05...
Have you been reading my mind, dads?

I was thinking the same thing - "name" may well be impassioned, but so
ill-informed as to negate that minor assumption. While I myself have no
love for the Copyright Cartel, I do recognize they have the *law* (in its
current incarnation) in their favour.

("more's the pity..." - and yeah, "the law is an ass")

Telling ANY Corporation their product should be _free_ - for whatever
altruistic reasons - is doomed for failure, in a capitalistic society at
least.

- Loco -
(Now Playing: Baby, You're A Rich Man - The Beatles)

On 8 Jul 2005 09:49:06 -0700, "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> was
understood to have stated the following:

The internet offers opportunities for innovative entrepreneurs, but
that doesn't mean those entrepreneurs have the right to steal other
people's property. That's the entire purpose of copyrights and
patents. Without copyrights or patents, the drive for the "technical
innovation" you've written about would be greatly reduced.

Yeah, but *most* musicians gain fame from broadcasts, not concerts.
Plus, in most cases, people purchase CDs from more artists than they
actually attend the concerts for.

If the artists were being exploited and prostituted, they are free to
move to other distribution mediums if they see fit. If they choose to
associate with the recording industry association, that's their
decision, not yours. If you don't want to do business with the RIAA,
don't, but don't steal their product and try to pass it off as
"liberation."

They've never been able to do anything to stop thievery; it's just
that technology has made the act of stealing much easier.

No, it means people should be rewarded for efforts they've engaged in
for a career. If people want to give their music or IP away, that's
their choice, not yours. When you develop IP, and it seems certain
that you never will, you'll have the right to choose how it's
distributed.

Really? Then why do employers pay them to come to work if they are
just wasting their time.

No argument there, but you're comparing apples and lug-nuts.

Yeah, I'm sure many musicians will greatly appreciate the reduced
income while the thieves run unchecked.

Not exactly, otherwise we wouldn't have two different branches of IP
protection.

Have you ever considered what a powerful incentive it is for people
who endeavor in the creative field to pursue other interests, because
they know people will steal from them?

Yup, and you'll find that their works are freely available, and
without copyright, so those dead and gone won't have any problems with
you "borrowing" their efforts.

That's delusion on your part. You're confusing "technological
development" with "legalizing theft." Once you understand the
difference, perhaps the concept of copyrights will become clearer for
you.

Because you're doing your best to convince yourself and others that
your thievery is morally justifiable. Good luck with that.

And should the authorities decide to knock on your door, keep in mind
that your ass is being laughed at while you're being served your
papers and/or carted off.


--

The last song I started on my PC was: Pearl Jam - Oceans - Ten
K:\Audio\Pearl Jam\Ten\07-Oceans.mp3
This is track 6 of 534 in the current playlist.

On 8 Jul 2005 10:01:10 -0700, "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> was
understood to have stated the following:

I think you've slept through a lot of things; economics included.

There's plenty of free music put out there by the creators, who want
their music to be free. But your demand is for copyrighted material,
isn't it?

No shit? You finally got something right.

It only implies that it's free if you're not the creator of said
music, and are seeking to justify theft.

Ok, so if "stealing an integer" and "stealing music" is a moronic
idea, why don't you put your money where your mouth is?

Great; you led up to where I was hoping to go. Why don't you post your
credit card numbers, expiration date, and the name as imprinted on the
card. After all, it *IS* only information.

Still waiting for your credit card numbers, champ.

Thievery has been around for a long time; the advent of technology
does not change the nature of the beast.


--

The last song I started on my PC was: Nickelback - How You Remind Me - Silver Side Up
K:\Audio\Nickelback\Silver Side Up\02 - How You Remind Me.mp3
This is track 8 of 534 in the current playlist.

On 8 Jul 2005 10:27:27 -0700, "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> was
understood to have stated the following:

So? How much of those other forms of compensation put food on the
table?

Non-sequitor.

Idiot, the government's "control" is for the benefits of the producers
of intellectual property. It's obvious from your arguments that you'll
never be capable of producing intellectual property of any value, so
it's no wonder you can not grasp this concept.

Agreed, and the government is there to help the people who
*rightfully* have the right to choose what to do with *their*
creations, and not some self-righteous thief who justifies their
actions by decrying a "control freak government" and "fascist
industry."

Since the option of suicide is available to you, why haven't you taken
it? Or would you rather inconvenience others through thievery and
deception? It's obvious you have nothing positive to contribute to the
world.

And yet the artists *willfully* sign up to that "fascist recording
industry." Interesting how the musicians who develop IP choose to side
with the FRI as opposed to giving their music away freely. I wonder
why that is? Perhaps to help keep the thieves at bay, so they can be
compensated for their efforts? Perish the thought.


--

The last song I started on my PC was: Counting Crows - Sullivan Street - August And Everything After
K:\Audio\Counting Crows\August And Everything After\08-Sullivan Street.mp3
This is track 10 of 534 in the current playlist.

On 8 Jul 2005 13:38:18 -0700, "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> was
understood to have stated the following:

You *really* need to learn to quit posting when you're behind, as each
post puts you further and further behind.

I don't work for Microsoft; I abhor the company. Only a complete moron
would post their real address into usenet, as they would get spammed
to death. I post an address I made up, with the Microsoft domain, to
help Microsoft's servers get their fair share of spam.

I'm sure you are a Windoze user; it's doubtful you could figure out
how to operate anything else.

Now here's something that you may find useful; repeat the following
words slowly until the picture becomes clearer for you:

Eye
Yam
Sofa
King
We
Todd
Ed


--

The last song I started on my PC was: Soundgarden - The Day I Tried To Live - Superunknown
K:\Audio\Soundgarden - Super Unknown\The Day I Tried To Live.mp3
This is track 12 of 534 in the current playlist.

On 8 Jul 2005 10:34:21 -0700, "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> was
understood to have stated the following:

And you think that's fair compensation for the artists? LOL!

What exactly is it you do for a living? Actually, given your logic,
I'm sure you haven't entered the work force yet, or if you have, it's
in the capacity of asking people if they would like to supersize their
order. Get use to a lifetime of that.


--

The last song I started on my PC was: Soundgarden - The Day I Tried To Live - Superunknown
K:\Audio\Soundgarden - Super Unknown\The Day I Tried To Live.mp3
This is track 12 of 534 in the current playlist.

On 8 Jul 2005 11:32:11 -0700, "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> was
understood to have stated the following:

If you're duplicating something the copyright owner hasn't given you
permission to duplicate, it's theft. That concept to complicated for
both your brain cells?

You live in China or Russia? In the US, you're free to borrow all
types of materials from the libraries, including books, magazines,
audio and video tapes and discs. However, you are not granted the
right to duplicate them.

If your favorite musicians are long dead and gone, then their
copyrights should have expired. Have fun with that!

The difference being "time shifting" vs. "theft." If I burn it, it's
burned to high-speed rewritables, so that it can be erased once I've
viewed it. Most of the time it doesn't get burned, but sits on the
hard drive. After I view it, I delete it. Only when space is very
tight do I "offload" a movie to a DVD?RW.

I don't really give a shit about Dutch copyright law, as I don't
listen to music produced by Dutch musicians.

Would be much more interesting to read that from a government resource
than a .COM.

But if dutch law allows for copying music, you won't mind me
forwarding your posting information to any of the recording industry
representatives?

Yup, and it's funny as hell when they get busted.

Then you wouldn't have any music to listen to, Einstein.

Either that, or bust the shit out of the thieves.

Wow, you're comparing a suitcase full of money with IP. Do you also
compare apples with screwdrivers?

First off, unless I was interested in giving the money to charity, I
wouldn't leave it lying around like that. I would protect it, you
know, sorta like an individual who creates IP registers for a
copyright or patent?

Nah, I didn't think you would, but have fun with that.


--

The last song I started on my PC was: Alice In Chains - Confusion - Facelift
K:\Audio\Alice in Chains\Facelift\10-Confusion.mp3
This is track 16 of 534 in the current playlist.

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 02:55:42 GMT, "dadiOH" <dadiOH@wherever.com> was
understood to have stated the following:

It is good for a laugh, though. :-D


--

The last song I started on my PC was: Alice In Chains - Confusion - Facelift
K:\Audio\Alice in Chains\Facelift\10-Confusion.mp3
This is track 16 of 534 in the current playlist.

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 02:40:00 GMT, dadiOH said...

His whole schtick is.

Without the oft repeated "fascist record company" line he has no argument
and without his claim to deserve everything for nothing because the
technology to deliver it exists, the guy has nothing.

Unfortunately, he is purporting to be arguing in favor of file and
information sharing when in truth his is doing far more damage to the
real arguments in favor of such than anything else.

That and the fact that he is a pretentious yet uninformed little no name
make further argument with him about as promising as arguing with a
Peterbilt over who gets the fast lane. You may well be right but is it
really worth making the point?

--
CQ

dadiOH wrote:
Of course scarcity has to do with the supply side of the laws of supply
and demand. Bread is very cheap because it isn't scarce. If we were
able to duplicate breads indefinitely at virtually no costs, bread
would be free. Don't you agree bread (or diamonds for that matter)
can't be duplicated as easily as a file on the computer?

So 845828112 is a number according to you, and 10111101000 is not?
Have you ever heard of numbers in binary notation?
What is a file on the computer according to you if it is not a (usually
large) number in binary notation?

name wrote:
Not what I said. I am familiar with base 2 numbers. Also base 10, 8,
16...
__________________

See above
__________________

A series of bits each representing an electrical state (on/off).

--
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:
Well, ok. There is a subtle distinction between series of binary
digits and numbers in binary notation (since numbers in binary notation
always start with a 1, unless they are 0).
But that doesn't really detract from my argument, since series of bits
are duplicated as easily as numbers and it makes equally little sense
to copyright a number (especially small numbers) as it makes sense to
copyright series of bits.

dadiOH wrote:
OK, I should qualify this statement. All of the people who buy blank
media in the Netherlands to store stuff they download pay an additional
levy to compensate for copyright infringement.