Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote:
Perhaps you have more luck finding an answer to your question on
alt.music.mp3.hardware since that group seems more relevant for
hardware related issues.

As "dadiOH" <dadiOH@wherever.com> so eloquently put:
[] Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote:
[] >
[] > Okay, let me update my manifesto for clarity:
[] >
[] > "A device with an OS capable of playing back a CD's tracks in the
[] > order it was sequenced in the studio WITHOUT RESORTING TO RENAMING THE
[] > DAMNED FILE NAMES is not a tall order by any means."
[]
[] The "OS" is the problem. You are talking about MP3 CDs, right? They
[] are files. How does your computer's OS sort them? Alphabetically.

No, I mean the portable MP3 device OS. I now own three devices that
can sort by track order. There's more than "filename". As you know,
each MP3 file contains metadata, ID3 tags, you know, "track", "album",
"artist", "genre", etc. No MP3 player needs to be ignorant about
this--they are, after all, MP3 header fields.

But since you mention it, the computer OS that I use, WinXP, is quite
capable of sorting by track order. It's totally smart about ID3 tags.
Windows Explorer is quite configurable this way. It honors most, if
not all ID3 tags. Right click on the header on the right side of
Windows Explorer, you'll see what I mean.

This ain't rocket surgery, folx.

[] Being files, there is a directory of some sort somewhere, no? The
[] player has to find a file in the directory so it knows where it is on
[] the media in order to decode it to wave so it can be played. In order
[] for something to find one of the files and play it in the order that you
[] want there would have to be some criteria other than filename to store
[] or find them in the directory. That is certainly not impossible to do
[] but it is just so simple to do it yourself (pre-fix number) perhaps the
[] manufacturer's just think, "why bother".

Um, perhaps you've missed this, but I've mentioned that "pert'ner all
players EXCEPT small flash players" are already smart this way. All of
my 3 MP3 players are hip to ID3 tags. I can play files in track order
just fine on all of them. ID3 tags to supplement the simple filename,
it's a no brainer. And it makes sense.

The ONLY players that don't do this are the flash players, but now
that they're high capacity (1GB and soon beyond), they need to get
smarter.

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]

As "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> so eloquently put:
[] David W. Poole, Jr. wrote:
[] > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 01:40:56 -0700, Not A Speck Of Cereal
[] > <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> was understood to have stated the
[] > following:
[] >
[] > >It's obvious to me now that he's naive of not just copyright law, but
[] > >contract law, broadcast and performance royalties and rights...
[] > >basically, he knows nothing of the industry, but that's not stopping
[] > >him from offering up naive rationalizations for what boils down to
[] > >theft of copyright protected works.
[] > >
[] > >I'm through with him.
[] >
[] > I think he's through with himself; the frequency and duration of his
[] > responses seems to be steadily decreasing. LOL.
[]
[] Well, you guys really convinced me... I'm gonna delete all my mp3s and
[] stick with buying music in the future. NOT! :-)

Dude, I really don't have that big a problem with your downloading in
general. Who's gonna stop it? Nobody. I have a problem with your
stance.

I would just like the downloaders to admit that first, it is indeed
stealing--there's no rationale there, even while we all admit that the
business model needs to change.

I'm just saying, those justifications you offer? They're bullshit.
There are thousands of artists that depend on income, and if you knew
any, you would buy their CDs. You're still download some, but maybe
you would do so with more consciousness, especially for those that
aren't mega-celebs who could live without it. Think integrity.

Ciao.

--
" 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]

As "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> so eloquently put:
[] Perhaps you have more luck finding an answer to your question on
[] alt.music.mp3.hardware since that group seems more relevant for
[] hardware related issues.

Thanks, I was unaware of this newsgroup. I've already settled on a Zen
Micro for my current needs, but I'll consult this group for future
concerns.

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]

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:13:19 -0700, Not A Speck Of Cereal
<XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> was understood to have stated the
following:

I'm aware that MP3s *can* have ID3 tags. I'm also aware that those
tags did not always support the concept of track numbers. It's always
easier to play catch-up on technology; I had my first MP3 player years
ago. How long have you had one?

Every application and operating system on every platform I've used
since MP3s came out have been capable of sorting by track order. Even
the apps, OS's, and platforms I've used predating MP3s supported
sorting by track order.

I've seen it before; I remember what you're talking about. Nice that
XP's explorer (and I'm sure other versions of Doze's explorer) have
nice support for MP3s. But I prefer not to use Explorer for the
purpose of music management; it's about like using Explorer for any
other form of file management.

You're right there.

Obviously it depends on your definition of sense. :-)

My Lyra might support the feature, although I haven't checked. My main
interest in a MP3 player is to make a small portion of my collection
portable, and for whatever reason I've always preferred listening to
my collection in "guided" shuffle mode.

I can see how if you want to listen to an entire album sequentially
how it would be an issue on a system that doesn't support this
feature. But then again the work around is easy enough, and has
broader applications. <grin>

On 12 Jul 2005 15:25:47 -0700, "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> was
understood to have stated the following:

Wondered where you went; have a good weekend?

David W. Poole, Jr. wrote:
Yep, it was ok... and yours?

Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote:
Well, likewise I have a problem with your stance.

It is not stealing. While I'm doing something they object to, that
doesn't make it stealing. If I'm careless with my possesions that
implies that I can no longer accuse people of stealing them.
Besides, duplication is something fundamentally different from stealing
where the object in question is no longer in the possession of its
rightful owner.
Why no just say that I duplicate their creative output without their
permission? I have no problems with that formulation. I don't steal,
burn, rape or murder music. I just copy it without the permission (or
even against the will) of the originator.
I just don't think artists have a right to remain in control over their
creations once they decide to distribute them. We may simply have a
fundamentally different point of view on this purported right of
artists.

They are not. If the recording industry would be reasonable about their
claims, like admitting that most music ought to be in the public domain
because the artists involved are dead and gone anyway I might take
their point of view into consideration.

Those artists dig their own grave by depending on obsolete business
models.
Once again, most of my favorite artists are long dead and gone anyway
so I don't see any moral objections to duplicating and distributing
their creations even when they would object to that if they were still
alive.

On 13 Jul 2005 04:11:39 -0700, "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> was
understood to have stated the following:

Decent; stayed home this weekend, for the most part, which is
relatively unusual. Thanks for asking.

Heard Weird Al's "Napsterland" at the one friend's house I visited,
which was way too ironic considering one of the first MP3s I pulled
was Metallica's "Enter Sandman". That MP3 years ago prompted a CD
purchase, and then a few days later Lars Ulrich decided to make an ass
out of himself, which prompted me to not purchase or listen to
Metallica any more. ;-D

As "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> so eloquently put:
[] >
[] > I would just like the downloaders to admit that first, it is indeed
[] > stealing--there's no rationale there, even while we all admit that the
[] > business model needs to change.
[]
[] It is not stealing.

Yes, you are.

[] While I'm doing something they object to, that
[] doesn't make it stealing.

Yes, it does.

[] If I'm careless with my possesions that
[] implies that I can no longer accuse people of stealing them.

And just how are artists careless, acquiring rights, distributing
their works by silence?

[] Besides, duplication is something fundamentally different from stealing
[] where the object in question is no longer in the possession of its
[] rightful owner.

Um, no.

[] Why no just say that I duplicate their creative output without their
[] permission?

Okay. Also, without paying them for their effort--that goes here too.

[] I have no problems with that formulation.

Obviously.

[] I don't steal,
[] burn, rape or murder music. I just copy it without the permission (or
[] even against the will) of the originator.

Dude, you have some serious problems with your definitions and
rationalizations. Have you ever considered the concept of intellectual
property?

TO ALL: if anyone knows what the fuck this guy is talking about,
please speak up and explain in reasonable terms? To wit: "I don't
steal it, I just copy it without permission".

Excuse me?

[] I just don't think artists have a right to remain in control over their
[] creations once they decide to distribute them.

HOLD ON, everyone out of the pool!

Did you just say that?

Let's try these:

I just don't think literary authors have a right to remain in control
over their books once they decide to publish them.

I just don't think painters have a right to remain in control over
their paintings once they decide to sell them.

I just don't think Ansel Adams has the right to remain in control over
his photographs once he decided to sell prints.

I just don't think that software developers have a right to remain in
control over their products once they decide to license them.

I just don't think produce stands have a right to remain in control
over their produce once they decide to distribute them.

I just don't think that musicians have a right to remain in control
over the music that they painstakingly wrote, from their heart,spent
eight months in the studio producing, and acquired publishing and
distribution rights to, once they decide to distribute them.

What color is the sky on your planet?!

[] We may simply have a
[] fundamentally different point of view on this purported right of
[] artists.

Yes, and I depart from my civility here by offering this: your POV is
totally fuck up and ABSOLUTELY FULL of irrational justification for
stealing.

This all started with my request to not get emails asking for me to
distribute what I've rightfully duplicated (not for distribution). You
rally against my POV with a pseudo philosophy, your skewed view of how
it is morally correct for you to steal... and not without some supreme
arrogance, I might add.

Fundamentally "different point of view on this purported right of
artists"? No. Their rights are absolute, defined by law. And
rightfully so. You continue to skip over my comments that these rights
were developed to protect artists.

[] > I'm just saying, those justifications you offer? They're bullshit.
[]
[] They are not. If the recording industry would be reasonable about their
[] claims, like admitting that most music ought to be in the public domain
[] because the artists involved are dead and gone anyway I might take
[] their point of view into consideration.

Um, no. Stealing Robert Johnson are we? How much of the music you've
downloaded are from dead artists? Really, please offer some
intellectual honesty here.

Keerist, what a weak argument. You KNOW that most of the music
downloaded is from current day, active artists.

[] > There are thousands of artists that depend on income, and if you knew
[] > any, you would buy their CDs. You're still download some, but maybe
[] > you would do so with more consciousness, especially for those that
[] > aren't mega-celebs who could live without it. Think integrity.
[]
[] Those artists dig their own grave by depending on obsolete business
[] models.

In your dreams. Didn't take that whole "integrity" thing to heart, I
gather.

[] Once again, most of my favorite artists are long dead and gone anyway
[] so I don't see any moral objections to duplicating and distributing
[] their creations even when they would object to that if they were still
[] alive.

Like who? Please name the artists you download.

Almost all of my ripped CDs are from artists not in the public domain.
What possible objection could you have--given this new qualifier of
yours that you only download public domain works--to me not wanting to
share my MP3 collection?

Hmm?

--
" 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]

Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote:
They would have to protect their possessions, for instance by keeping
it to themselves. If an artists creates stuff and keeps it to himself,
I would consider it stealing when people break into their house and
take their stuff away.

Sure. If you are careless about your possessions, other people might
decide to take them without paying for it and rightfully so.

This is wishful thinking. There is no such thing as intellectual
property.

If these people want to prevent people from circumventing outdated
businessmodels they are going to have to do more than adding a note
that they object to that. If you leave the door of your house open as
you go on vacation and you leave a note on the door "please don't take
anything from my house" that is unlikely to prevent people from
stealing your stuff.
Note that I'm talking about stealing here, since it's unlikely they are
just going to take pictures or something while leaving all your
possessions in your house.

You can't just define laws any way you please. Laws have to be
realistic and practical among other things. Copyrightlaw is not
realistic and unpractical given the availability of computers and the
internet.

I love classical music for instance. Bach, Chopin, Mahler, Wagner,
Stravinsky, Varese, Messiaen, Schoenberg, etc...
Also, artists like Bob Marley, Frank Zappa, Howlin Wolf, John Coltrane,
Eric Dolphy, John Cage, etc..

I didn't say I was only downloading public domain works. I said I might
consider doing that IF the recording industry would be more reasonable
about their claims and admit that most of the music produced belongs to
the public domain.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:35:26 -0700, Not A Speck Of Cereal
<XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> was understood to have stated the
following:

He's a P2Per. You don't expect him to be intelligent or rational, do
you? He did, after all, find fault with you for your not sharing
"your" collection.

No one knows what the hell he's talking about, except for his fellow
thieves.

Don't worry; you've hit it right on the head. :-D

As "David W. Poole, Jr." <STKR@microsoft.com> so eloquently put:
[] On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:35:26 -0700, Not A Speck Of Cereal
[] <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> was understood to have stated the
[] following:
[]
[] >Dude, you have some serious problems with your definitions and
[] >rationalizations. Have you ever considered the concept of intellectual
[] >property?
[]
[] He's a P2Per. You don't expect him to be intelligent or rational, do
[] you? He did, after all, find fault with you for your not sharing
[] "your" collection.
[]
[] >TO ALL: if anyone knows what the fuck this guy is talking about,
[] >please speak up and explain in reasonable terms? To wit: "I don't
[] >steal it, I just copy it without permission".
[]
[] No one knows what the hell he's talking about, except for his fellow
[] thieves.
[]
[] >Excuse me?
[]
[] Don't worry; you've hit it right on the head. :-D

Thanks, it seemed for a moment that I was alone in this, when
actually, it seems that most people are just tired of responding to
his kind of youthful but all so misguided bravado.

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]