Pt gets put BACK in jail

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

http://news.yahoo.com/court-wont-reduce-students-music-download-fine-144922490.html

When interviewed after the hearing Pt told reporters
"But I only did it because I can't buy sheet music
for a quarter any more like I used to do in the 60s.
If I didn't steal the material, I wouldn't be able to
have been in the 1173 bands I've been in the past 3 years"


Lump

[RichL]

"Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke" <lu...@LumpyMusic.com> wrote in message
news:jpdrpk$t47$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Pt shares songs over the internet? Do tell.

I gotta say he looks pretty good for his age, however.

[Jim]

These ridiculous posts do nothing to help your general credibility.

Posting that somebody has been jailed for criminal activity WHEN NOT
TRUE can sometimes get you into trouble, and is always despicable, IMHO.

Why post LIES designed to disparage another person's character? Is this
junior high?

[Pt]

On May 21, 2:25 pm, Jim <ask@first> wrote:
> On 5/21/2012 9:50 AM, Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke wrote:
>

> >http://news.yahoo.com/court-wont-reduce-students-music-download-fine-...

>
> > When interviewed after the hearing Pt told reporters
> > "But I only did it because I can't buy sheet music
> > for a quarter any more like I used to do in the 60s.
> > If I didn't steal the material, I wouldn't be able to
> > have been in the 1173 bands I've been in the past 3 years"
>
> > Lump
>
> These ridiculous posts do nothing to help your general credibility.
>
> Posting that somebody has been jailed for criminal activity WHEN NOT
> TRUE can sometimes get you into trouble, and is always despicable, IMHO.
>
> Why post LIES designed to disparage another person's character?  Is this
> junior high?

Sticks and stones etc.
One of these days he will run out of people to slander.
Not many left now.

Pt

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

Jim wrote:
> Why post LIES designed to disparage another person's character?

Character? Pt?
He's admitted to exactly what I describe in my post
several times over the past several years with absolutely
no remorse.

I'd say the "disparage" comes from right there within Pt himself.

Let's hear from all those who think illegal downloading is ok!
Apparently that guy in the news story thought it was "just
something kids do". Which is apparently the same cav attitude
Pt (and who else among you?) has.


Lump

[jim]

On 5/21/2012 1:09 PM, Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke wrote:
> Jim wrote:
>> Why post LIES designed to disparage another person's character?
>
> Character? Pt?
> He's admitted to exactly what I describe in my post
> several times over the past several years with absolutely
> no remorse.

What you describe is Pt going "back to jail."

>
> I'd say the "disparage" comes from right there within Pt himself.

Those are your personal opinions, and you're welcome to them. You cross
the lines of decency (legal issues aside) when you post blatant lies on
the internet.

>
> Let's hear from all those who think illegal downloading is ok!

It's not "ok." Just like it's not okay to post lies about people,
especially involving jail time.

> Apparently that guy in the news story thought it was "just
> something kids do".

It WAS "just something that kids do," but it was also wrong and illegal.
I've got my own opinions on amount of damages and sacrificing a few to
make a point for the masses.

> Which is apparently the same cav attitude
> Pt (and who else among you?) has.

I'll bet that most people reading this have downloaded music off the net
at once.

There was once a time when Universal Studios said that anybody taping a
TV show was infringing on their copyrighted material. They lost.


Now there's some legal history on downloading MP3's, if you don't own a
copy of the song. And people should be paying attention. There's no
longer the excuse "I didn't know, everybody did it!"

You can still rip an MP3 in order to adapt the format for use in another
piece of technology (computer), as long as you own the CD, right? But
that doesn't follow for DVD's. I wish that Real Networks would've
pursued RealDVD, but the pretrial rulings weren't pretty. If I can rip
audio for convenience, why not movies? I'd like everything on a HTPC
hard drive.

Now, what about capturing flash files off of youtube? Is that
time-shifting (especially for people without fast connections), or is it
theft?

You can often take a picture of a picture, without it infringing. But
you can't play a song without paying royalties.

It's not all intuitive. I cannot conclude that anybody who ever
downloaded a few MP3's is a dirtbag that belongs in jail. I can
conclude that they shouldn't be doing it now!



>
> Lump
>
>

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

I hear a lot of excuses.

Doing something illegal is illegal, whether you agree
with it or not. BRAGGING about doing it deserves your
butt hole getting widened by a huge cellmate every
45 minutes while serving your time in the graybar hotel.

What say ye? Proud of being a criminal?


Lump

[Controll]

Really Craig???
Still can't man up enough to pull the trigger yourself.
Got to try and piss someone off and get them to do your dirty work.
Stop being a wimpy little jerk to everyone, just stick the barrel in
your mouth and pull the trigger yourself.
That, or if you're still to much of a coward, go to a bigger news group
and start pissing people off and posting your contact info. like you do
here. You'll have much better chance of finding that mentally unstable
person you're looking for with a larger audience.
Go to: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
There's a couple of really spooky people there that might oblige your
desire. And you can stay in your comfort zone of music.
Just remember, shit splatters when you shoot it so you can have a last
laugh knowing someone else will get stuck with cleaning you off the walls.
Bastardo' ♪♫

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

Controll wrote:

> Really Craig???

Yes, really "controll".

> ...if you're still to much of a coward, go to a bigger news

> group and start pissing people off and posting your contact info.

> like you do here...

I've posted my contact information on every post in every
newsgroup, discussion group, Yahoo group and every other
forum I've ever posted in, for decades.

More than I can say for you "controll".

I'm guessing you saw the annular eclipse pretty well
down there in Austin yesterday.


Lump

[Jim]

On 5/21/2012 3:56 PM, Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke wrote:
> I hear a lot of excuses.
>
> Doing something illegal is illegal, whether you agree
> with it or not. BRAGGING about doing it deserves your
> butt hole getting widened by a huge cellmate every
> 45 minutes while serving your time in the graybar hotel.

I think that the penalty should fit the crime. Downloading some tunes
shouldn't be treated the same as breaking into an occupied home to steal
their possessions. I don't necessarily like inordinate punishments in
the name of deterrence.

>
> What say ye? Proud of being a criminal?

I'll assume that that comment was meant for somebody else. However, I
admit to downloading a few tunes off the net, prior to the big Napster
stink. BUT I ALREADY OWNED THE CD'S, I was just too lazy to figure out
how to rip them! So I had a license to convert them to another form for
use on the computer. No foul.

>
>
> Lump

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

Jim wrote:

> ...However, I

> admit to downloading a few tunes off the net, prior to the big Napster
> stink. BUT I ALREADY OWNED THE CD'S, I was just too lazy to figure
> out how to rip them! So I had a license to convert them to another
> form for use on the computer. No foul.

Owning a CD doesn't give you license to obtain the material
by other means. It allows you to make an arcive copy of the
CD you already have.

There certainly IS a "foul". Artists offering their intellectual
material on download legal sites incurr expenses in doing so. For
you do come along and deny them the opportunity to profit comes
right out of the US copyright law language.


Lump

[wereoawl]

"jim" <inse@ttle> wrote in message news:5lb4hl....@isomedia.com...

Irrelevant. Anyone who downloads anything other than Nuclear Warrior or the
California Jam Wereo is a goddamn FOOL to begin with.

[wereoawl]

"Jim" <ask@first> wrote in message news:5lba7e....@isomedia.com...

They should be treated like a FOOL.

[Jim]

I already owned it, and didn't need to pay again in order to enjoy it in
the different format. I had a license to convert myself. I've seen
NOTHING that says I can't possess the same format converted by somebody
else. The important distinction is that I ALREADY PAID FOR IT.

[wereoawl]

"Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke" <lu...@LumpyMusic.com> wrote in message
news:jpdrpk$t47$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

BOWL-ASS gets put BACK in Prison?

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

Jim wrote:
> I already owned it, and didn't need to pay again in order to enjoy it

> in the different format...


SOMEBODY had to pay for it. The law requires that somebody to
be the consumer (you). The artist/producer/rights owner(s)
had to pay to make it downloadable, host it somewhere, pay for
the accounting, royalties, mechanicals, copyright registration fees,
etc. You don't get to "deprive the rights owner the opportunity to gain financially"
(copyright law terminology) just because you've already bought a different
format of the recording.

If you own the physical CD, you do not own license to download.
It's just that simple. You have license to copy THAT CD to an
archive format or to transfer it to another format for play
on your iPod or other device for your personal use.

> I've seen NOTHING that says I can't possess the same format
> converted by somebody else.

That would be title 17 USC.

> The important distinction is that I ALREADY PAID FOR IT.

You haven't already paid for the download version. You've
paid for the physical "phonorecording".

If you own the VHS copy of "Star Trek - Return from Dorian" you
don't have the right to also watch it free on subscription TV.
You have to pay the appropriate fee for that format.

An even simpler argument is that you downloaded it from some site
that was illegally hosting it, and someone else illegally uploaded
it to that site, just as that kid that just got trumped by the SCOTUS did.
There's nothing the least bit legal about that.


Lump

[gonjah]

-- X-No-Archive: Yes

Are you "Jim" the lawyer?

[esha...@yahoo.com]

At least no one downloaded any of your copywrite protected songs (oh yeah there are none !!). e

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

esha...@yahoo.com wrote:

> At least no one downloaded any of your copywrite protected songs (oh
> yeah there are none !!). e

Great job of doing research you've done.


Lump

[jim]

On 5/21/2012 11:41 PM, Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke wrote:
> Jim wrote:
>> I already owned it, and didn't need to pay again in order to enjoy it
>> in the different format...
>
>
> SOMEBODY had to pay for it. The law requires that somebody to
> be the consumer (you). The artist/producer/rights owner(s)
> had to pay to make it downloadable, host it somewhere, pay for
> the accounting, royalties, mechanicals, copyright registration fees,
> etc. You don't get to "deprive the rights owner the opportunity to gain financially"
> (copyright law terminology) just because you've already bought a different
> format of the recording.
>
> If you own the physical CD, you do not own license to download.
> It's just that simple. You have license to copy THAT CD to an
> archive format or to transfer it to another format for play
> on your iPod or other device for your personal use.
>
>> I've seen NOTHING that says I can't possess the same format
>> converted by somebody else.
>
> That would be title 17 USC.

Please provide the direct cite to the controlling statute.

>
>> The important distinction is that I ALREADY PAID FOR IT.
>
> You haven't already paid for the download version. You've
> paid for the physical "phonorecording".
>
> If you own the VHS copy of "Star Trek - Return from Dorian" you
> don't have the right to also watch it free on subscription TV.
> You have to pay the appropriate fee for that format.

That has absolutely nothing to do with whether a person who purchased a
CD has the right to possess an MP3 of the purchased material.

>
> An even simpler argument is that you downloaded it from some site
> that was illegally hosting it,

In any case, that happened before any claims were made. Very early on
in file sharing.

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

jim wrote:
> > > I've seen NOTHING that says I can't possess the same format
> > > converted by somebody else.

Lump:

> > That would be title 17 USC.

jim:

> Please provide the direct cite to the controlling statute.

You want me to supply you with a cite of title 17 USC that
states that it's illegal for you to download from illegal
download sites?

You funny thief.


Lump

[esha...@yahoo.com]

Ok I spent some time looking you up --- hey you grew a beard and a RUG on the bald noggin..
http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Dcraig%2Blemke%26vm%3Dr&w=124&h=160&imgurl=www.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dcraig%2Blemke%23focal%3D30dbba091d07038793989b0d9ce3408d%26furl%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fimgs.sfgate.com%252fc%252fpictures%252f2011%252f06%252f15%252fba-Lemke15_PH1_0503632337.jpg&size=&name=search&rcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dcraig%2Blemke%23focal%3D30dbba091d07038793989b0d9ce3408d%26furl%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fimgs.sfgate.com%252fc%252fpictures%252f2011%252f06%252f15%252fba-Lemke15_PH1_0503632337.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dcraig%2Blemke%23focal%3D30dbba091d07038793989b0d9ce3408d%26furl%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fimgs.sfgate.com%252fc%252fpictures%252f2011%252f06%252f15%252fba-Lemke15_PH1_0503632337.jpg&p=craig+lemke&type=&no=1&tt=113&oid=http%3A%2F%2Fts2.mm.bing.net%2Fimages%2Fthumbnail.aspx%3Fq%3D4644183081878321%26id%3D5c6b823aea77f0d94d09b8d512ab5698&tit=Craig+Lemke+is+incapacitated+by+an+-+Media+%281+of+1%29+Calif.+convict+...&sigr=15otkt8m8&sigi=15hg8gsna&sigb=11qbdv051&fr=yfp-t-701

still didn't find any albums ?? wtf Ed

[gonjah]

-- X-No-Archive: Yes

Full story:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/15/BAV51JUBGA.DTL

Ornery cuss.

Looks like he was released to a nursing facility for not being able to
perform ADL.

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

esha...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Ok I spent some time looking you up --- hey you grew a beard and a
> RUG on the bald noggin..
> http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Dcraig%2Blemke%26vm%3Dr&w=124&h=160&imgurl=www.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dcraig%2Blemke%23focal%3D30dbba091d07038793989b0d9ce3408d%26furl%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fimgs.sfgate.com%252fc%252fpictures%252f2011%252f06%252f15%252fba-Lemke15_PH1_0503632337.jpg&size=&name=search&rcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dcraig%2Blemke%23focal%3D30dbba091d07038793989b0d9ce3408d%26furl%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fimgs.sfgate.com%252fc%252fpictures%252f2011%252f06%252f15%252fba-Lemke15_PH1_0503632337.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dcraig%2Blemke%23focal%3D30dbba091d07038793989b0d9ce3408d%26furl%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fimgs.sfgate.com%252fc%252fpictures%252f2011%252f06%252f15%252fba-Lemke15_PH1_0503632337.jpg&p=craig+lemke&type=&no=1&tt=113&oid=http%3A%2F%2Fts2.mm.bing.net%2Fimages%2Fthumbnail.aspx%3Fq%3D4644183081878321%26id%3D5c6b823aea77f0d94d09b8d512ab5698&tit=Craig+Lemke+is+incapacitated+by+an+-+Media+%281+of+1%29+Calif.+convict+...&sigr=15otkt8m8&sigi=15hg8gsna&sigb=11qbdv051&fr=yfp-t-701
>
> still didn't find any albums ?? wtf Ed

I found a PR pic for one of your big shows -
http://digitalcartography.com/camp/EdsBand.jpg


Lump

[gonjah]

Should say "NO Assholes".

[esha...@yahoo.com]

Seems I'm headling with my own name and band ! (even if you did fake in the name).
Where is the LUMPY Band playing ?? Ohh yeah that's right - nobody can stand you
long enough to be in your band..
"Those that can - Do , those that can't teach" or just bitch about what
everyone else does or trys to do..
-- Woolly Bully.e.

[gonjah]

On 5/22/2012 5:10 PM, esha...@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 4:22:10 PM UTC-5, Craig&#39;Lumpy&#39; Lemke wrote:
>> esha...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> Ok I spent some time looking you up --- hey you grew a beard and a
>>> RUG on the bald noggin..
>>> http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Dcraig%2Blemke%26vm%3Dr&w=124&h=160&imgurl=www.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dcraig%2Blemke%23focal%3D30dbba091d07038793989b0d9ce3408d%26furl%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fimgs.sfgate.com%252fc%252fpictures%252f2011%252f06%252f15%252fba-Lemke15_PH1_0503632337.jpg&size=&name=search&rcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dcraig%2Blemke%23focal%3D30dbba091d07038793989b0d9ce3408d%26furl%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fimgs.sfgate.com%252fc%252fpictures%252f2011%252f06%252f15%252fba-Lemke15_PH1_0503632337.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dcraig%2Blemke%23focal%3D30dbba091d07038793989b0d9ce3408d%26furl%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fimgs.sfgate.com%252fc%252fpictures%252f2011%252f06%252f15%252fba-Lemke15_PH1_0503632337.jpg&p=craig+lemke&type=&no=1&tt=113&oid=http%3A%2F%2Fts2.mm.bing.net%2Fimages%2Fthumbnail.aspx%3Fq%3D4644183081878321%26id%3D5c6b823aea77f0d94d09b8d512ab5698&tit=Craig+Lemke+is+incapacitated+by+an+-+Media+%281+of+1%29+Calif.+convict+...&sigr=15otkt8m8&sigi=15hg8gsna&sigb=11qbdv051&fr=yfp-t-701
>>>
>>> still didn't find any albums ?? wtf Ed
>> I found a PR pic for one of your big shows -
>> http://digitalcartography.com/camp/EdsBand.jpg
>>
>>
>> Lump
> Seems I'm headling with my own name and band ! (even if you did fake in the name).

> <snip>
-- X-No-Archive: Yes

Hey! They're not assholes and that's all the matters. Right ed?

[esha...@yahoo.com]

Well actually - Yeah that is all that matters. We'll Rock that place. Ed

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

esha...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Where is the LUMPY Band playing ?? Ohh yeah that's right - nobody can
> stand you
> long enough to be in your band..
> "Those that can - Do , those that can't teach" or just bitch about
> what
> everyone else does or trys to do..

http://digitalcartography.com/camp/EdsBand-06.jpg


Lump

[Pt]

On May 22, 4:22 pm, "Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke" <lu...@LumpyMusic.com>
wrote:

> esham...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Ok I spent some time looking you up --- hey you grew a beard and a
> > RUG on the bald noggin..

> >http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.y...

>
> > still didn't find any albums ?? wtf Ed
>
> I found a PR pic for one of your big shows -http://digitalcartography.com/camp/EdsBand.jpg
>
> Lump

He is not welcome to move to Illinois...or Iowa...or Wisconsin...or
Indiana...or anywhere in the USA.

Pt

[gonjah]

Your new band name and logo

http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u665/no_assholes_big.jpg

--
X-No-Archive: Yes

[esha...@yahoo.com]

That just one of Lumpys student. He told them the most important thing in life is reading sheet music, and copying other peoples songs (being an Ass is OK) . I took that picture out the window of my XK8 Jaguar, after picking up my daughter and shopping for a gift for my son, on my way home, from my engineering high tech job going to my 4,500 sqr ft home on 3 acres, and going swimming in my 27,000 gal pool.. Wife is BBQing steak and lobster for me ready when I get home. Woolly Bully -e

[Jim]

Your comments confirm that you know NOTHING about Title 17.

17 USC § 1101 punishes TRAFFICKING in copyrighted materials
WITHOUT the artist's CONSENT.

I wasn't trafficking. To traffic means: the term “traffic”
means to transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to
another, for purposes of commercial advantage or private
financial gain, or to make, import, export, obtain control
of, or possess, with intent to so transport, transfer, or
otherwise dispose of.

Those prosecuted were FILE SHARING. Their computers were open to others
who could then download, having not paid for the song in the first place.

Those prosecuted NEVER PAID for the songs in the first place.

I am NOT a thief because I PAID FOR THE SONG before I acquired the MP3.

If you want to quibble about how I acquired the MP3, which was a point
in time that predated any complaints by copyright holders, quibble away.
If later court decisions clarified that I shouldn't have visited those
sites... That still doesn't make me a "thief."

Craig Lempke, you are a LIAR, because you fabricated Pt's quote and
posted that he was going "back" to jail.

Craig Lemke, you are a POSER, because you throw "Title 17" around to
convince others that you know what you're talking about, yet your own
comments show that you are not familiar with the content of the Act.

There was a time when you posted helpful messages that contributed to
this forum. But you have become nothing more than a festering PUSTULE
on the backside of AGB. You are the worst type of troll. The type that
fabricates lies about fellow members for your own twisted enjoyment.

You will be FINE COMPANY for Romeo Rose and the California Jam nutjob in
my killfile.

[gonjah]

On 5/23/2012 12:04 PM, Jim wrote:
> On 5/22/2012 1:12 PM, Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke wrote:
>> jim wrote:
>>>>> I've seen NOTHING that says I can't possess the same format
>>>>> converted by somebody else.
>>
>> Lump:
>>>> That would be title 17 USC.
>>
>> jim:
>>> Please provide the direct cite to the controlling statute.
>>
>> You want me to supply you with a cite of title 17 USC that
>> states that it's illegal for you to download from illegal
>> download sites?
>>
>> You funny thief.
>>
>>
>> Lump
>
> Your comments confirm that you know NOTHING about Title 17.
>
> 17 USC § 1101 punishes TRAFFICKING in copyrighted materials
> WITHOUT the artist's CONSENT.
>
> I wasn't trafficking. To traffic means: the term “traffic”
> means to transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to
> another, for purposes of commercial advantage or private
> financial gain, or to make, import, export, obtain control
> of, or possess, with intent to so transport, transfer, or
> otherwise dispose of.
>

Sounds kind of like what you did. <snip>

> Those prosecuted were FILE SHARING. Their computers were open to
> others who could then download, having not paid for the song in the
> first place.
>
> Those prosecuted NEVER PAID for the songs in the first place.
>
> I am NOT a thief because I PAID FOR THE SONG before I acquired the MP3.
>
> If you want to quibble about how I acquired the MP3, which was a point
> in time that predated any complaints by copyright holders, quibble
> away. If later court decisions clarified that I shouldn't have
> visited those sites... That still doesn't make me a "thief."
>
> Craig Lempke, you are a LIAR, because you fabricated Pt's quote and
> posted that he was going "back" to jail.
>
> Craig Lemke, you are a POSER, because you throw "Title 17" around to
> convince others that you know what you're talking about, yet your own
> comments show that you are not familiar with the content of the Act.
>
> There was a time when you posted helpful messages that contributed to
> this forum. But you have become nothing more than a festering PUSTULE
> on the backside of AGB. You are the worst type of troll. The type
> that fabricates lies about fellow members for your own twisted enjoyment.
>
> You will be FINE COMPANY for Romeo Rose and the California Jam nutjob
> in my killfile.

--
X-No-Archive: Yes

[Jim]

No "purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain." I
wasn't avoiding payment to the artist. I already paid for the CD! My
only advantage was that I found the MP3 format when I didn't know how to
convert. I had the right to possess it.

[gonjah]

--
X-No-Archive: Yes

That's a bit of a leap. Besides, if you d/l illegally you committed an
illegal act regardless of your previous ownership.

You did gain. The gain may have been as simple as the convenience or
getting a better quality.

How did you know the version you d/l was the same as the one you had?

Don't get me wrong. I've done the same thing I just don't anymore. I've
learned to realize I needed to be more careful.

[Jim]

...and, in case it's not abundantly clear by now, I NEVER was engaged in
sharing. I NEVER made my copy available to another individual.

[Jim]

On 5/23/2012 10:38 AM, gonjah wrote:
> You did gain. The gain may have been as simple as the convenience or
> getting a better quality.

I disagree. Besides, there's also an element of "without the artists
consent." Would an artist allege that I didn't have their consent to
acquire an MP3 IN THAT MANNER, when I clearly clearly had a right to
possess the MP3? Very doubtful.

Any technical violation was done at a time before claims were made. I
certainly would not do it now. But what I did does not make me "a thief."

What's going to happen if YOUTUBE becomes the next target??? Should I
even admit that I captured an .flv because I wanted to avoid the stutter
caused by my less than stellar DSL connection? Or do I risk being called
"a thief" somewhere down the road, IF AND WHEN litigation "proves" that
capturing an .flv violates copyright???

THAT is the context in which I acquired the MP3. Prior to claims and
litigation.

If you didn't already figure this out: Craig Lemke is not happy that
I've called him on fabricating Pt's quotes and saying that he's going
back to jail. So he's engaging in another sleazy troll of calling me a
"thief."

[gonjah]

On 5/23/2012 12:56 PM, Jim wrote:
> On 5/23/2012 10:38 AM, gonjah wrote:

>> Yoenetting a better quality.

Well, I'm not lumpy. I don't care about the feud between Lumpy and Pat.

Youtube is a target and has been for sometime. Haven't you noticed all
the videos being pulled?

I'm really just more curious how an attorney looks at the problem. It's
been my decision to err on the side of caution as I want to publish someday.

[gonjah]

-- X-No-Archive: Yes On 5/23/2012 12:43 PM, Jim wrote:
> ...and, in case it's not abundantly clear by now, I NEVER was engaged
> in sharing. I NEVER made my copy available to another individual.

So you were not file sharing. You were file taking.

The last file sharing sites I looked at were mostly bogus with better
odds of d/l a virus than getting anything usable. Which was ironic justice.

[Jim]

On 5/23/2012 11:52 AM, gonjah wrote:
> -- X-No-Archive: Yes On 5/23/2012 12:43 PM, Jim wrote:
>> ...and, in case it's not abundantly clear by now, I NEVER was engaged
>> in sharing. I NEVER made my copy available to another individual.
>
> So you were not file sharing. You were file taking.

...a file that I had a legal right to possess.

[Jim]

Yes, AFTER a copyright holder complains.

And it occurs to me that the flv that I remember capturing was placed
there by the copyright holder for educational purposes (actually a
couple of videos on building computers, put up by newegg). So it's not
the same thing as if I was building a collection of copyrighted songs
(which I would not do)!

But I also seem to remember casual guitar players being asked to remove
their covers of copyrighted material???

>
> I'm really just more curious how an attorney looks at the problem. It's
> been my decision to err on the side of caution as I want to publish
> someday.

Well, I am an attorney, but I don't practice intellectual property. My
father does, but specializes in litigation of patents -- not internet
copyright issues. I haven't bothered him with this issue. But to be
fair, I would've been interested in how a copyright attorney views what
I did, at the time that I did it. If it was technically wrong, at least
I had the right to possess what I downloaded!

[gonjah]

-- X-No-Archive: Yes

I've always found that kind of stuff interesting, besides wanting
people, particularly creative musicians, to get paid.

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

Jim wrote:
> Well, I am an attorney, but I don't practice intellectual property.

Great.
Post your name and where you're a member of the bar.
Is it TX?

We'll see if your peers agree with you or with me.


Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke MA BSEd
5526 E Pershing Ave
Scottsdale AZ 85254-3632
--
In Your Ears for 50 Years
www.LumpyMusic.com

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

Jim wrote:
> ...a file that I had a legal right to possess.

Prove it.

Where did you download it from?
Demonstrate that they have license to allow you do
download it.

And again, post your name and where you're an atty.
If you're so proud of how right you think you are,
I'd be happy to allow your bar assoc to back you
up.

What say, Mr "attorney".

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

Thief Jim:

> > Well, I am an attorney, but I don't practice intellectual property.
> > My father does, but specializes in litigation of patents -- not
> > internet copyright issues. I haven't bothered him with this issue.
> > But to be fair, I would've been interested in how a copyright
> > attorney views what I did, at the time that I did it. If it was
> > technically wrong, at least I had the right to possess what I
> > downloaded!

gonj:

> I've always found that kind of stuff interesting, besides wanting
> people, particularly creative musicians, to get paid.

Thieves don't care about the people they steal from.

You know, I figure lawyers get used to all the lawyer jokes.
I've known a lot of lawyers in my life. I have an IP lawyer
as a student. I've been dealing with IP legal issues for
half a century. Generally, I find lawyers pretty easy going.
I'm sure the ambulance chasers and the "Had a wrek, get a check"
types are a miniscule percentage among the good and ethical lawyers.

This Jim guy, however, is one of that miniscule percentage. Apparently
you, Jim Somebody afraid to identify yourself, believe that illegal
downloading is acceptable. You seem to even somehow want to twist
the situation around to believe that even if you've broken the law,
you had the right to break the law. Is this what you'd teach your
kids? Is this what you'd advise a client?

You deserve the brunt of every lawyer joke that's ever been uttered.
And in a very real sense, you deserve sanctions from the bar, and
criminal and civil prosecution.

Who are you that has the gall to say you're a lawyer in one
breath and then be proud of stealing with another?

Who are you?


Lump

[gonjah]

-- X-No-Archive: Yes

Fuc_ing ouch! You are one hardcore dude. ;-)

[RichL]

"Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke" <lu...@LumpyMusic.com> wrote in message
news:jpgrvk$buo$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> jim wrote:
>> > > I've seen NOTHING that says I can't possess the same format
>> > > converted by somebody else.
>
> Lump:
>> > That would be title 17 USC.
>
> jim:
>> Please provide the direct cite to the controlling statute.
>
> You want me to supply you with a cite of title 17 USC that
> states that it's illegal for you to download from illegal
> download sites?

If you believe that Jim has misinterpreted the law, why not point him
directly to the section of the law that pertains?

If, as you claim, you've been dealing with IP legal issues for half a
century, that shouldn't be so difficult for you. And who knows, maybe the
rest of us would learn something.

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

RichL wrote:

> If you believe that Jim has misinterpreted the law, why not point him
> directly to the section of the law that pertains?

Again? Haven't I done that eleven gazillion times here
over the past couple decades?

He downloaded from an illegal download site.
What part of that is possibly interpretible as legal?

This guy surpasses Pt in low ethics. A musician stealing
from other musicians is pretty slimy. A member of the bar,
an officer of the court, with a father who is an IP attorney,
who steals from musicians and not only tells about it in
public, but maintains that he knows it's illegal but
it's ok in his case...that's classic.

That takes Pt off the hook. I've got a new hobby
with this Jim the lawyer guy.


Lump

[RichL]

"Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke" <lu...@LumpyMusic.com> wrote in message

news:jpjn9u$ul4$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> RichL wrote:
>
>> If you believe that Jim has misinterpreted the law, why not point him
>> directly to the section of the law that pertains?
>
> Again? Haven't I done that eleven gazillion times here
> over the past couple decades?

Not that I recall. I certainly remember you SAYING it was illegal.

>
> He downloaded from an illegal download site.
> What part of that is possibly interpretible as legal?

YouTube is an illegal download site? Really?

>
> This guy surpasses Pt in low ethics. A musician stealing
> from other musicians is pretty slimy. A member of the bar,
> an officer of the court, with a father who is an IP attorney,
> who steals from musicians and not only tells about it in
> public, but maintains that he knows it's illegal but
> it's ok in his case...that's classic.

Bzzzt. He said that when he did it (once), he didn't know it was illegal.
He says he's not sure it's illegal now. It seems to me that the best course
of action would be to clarify WHY it's illegal with direct citation to
pertinent sections of the law....

>
> That takes Pt off the hook. I've got a new hobby
> with this Jim the lawyer guy.

.... instead of going off (again!) into Internet Asshole mode.

[gonjah]

On 5/23/2012 5:33 PM, RichL wrote:
> Bzzzt. He said that when he did it (once), he didn't know it was
> illegal. He says he's not sure it's illegal now. It seems to me that
> the best course of action would be to clarify WHY it's illegal with
> direct citation to pertinent sections of the law....

This is what "Jim" <capital J> wrote:

"However, I admit to downloading a few tunes off the net, prior to the
big Napster stink. BUT I ALREADY OWNED THE CD'S, I was just too lazy to
figure out how to rip them! So I had a license to convert them to
another form for use on the computer. No foul."

Maybe it was "jim" <small j> you're referring to.

I gotta admit. I thought it was a strange thing for a lawyer to defend.
At least "on the record".

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

RichL wrote:

> .... instead of going off (again!) into Internet Asshole mode.

I can multi task. You can block me.

He's a thief. I think he should have a talk with his
daddy about admitting to what he's done and get daddy's advice
about whether or not to continue to post about it in a
public forum.

Otherwise he should sue me.


Lump

[RichL]

"gonjah" <gonjah.net> wrote in message
news:_5adnbVFQtPY9SDS...@posted.toastnet...

> On 5/23/2012 5:33 PM, RichL wrote:
>> Bzzzt. He said that when he did it (once), he didn't know it was
>> illegal. He says he's not sure it's illegal now. It seems to me that the
>> best course of action would be to clarify WHY it's illegal with direct
>> citation to pertinent sections of the law....
>
> This is what "Jim" <capital J> wrote:
>
> "However, I admit to downloading a few tunes off the net, prior to the big
> Napster stink. BUT I ALREADY OWNED THE CD'S, I was just too lazy to
> figure out how to rip them! So I had a license to convert them to another
> form for use on the computer. No foul."
>
> Maybe it was "jim" <small j> you're referring to.

Same guy. I think 'j' or 'J' depends on what computer he's using.

>
> I gotta admit. I thought it was a strange thing for a lawyer to defend. At
> least "on the record".

Well in a separate post he had said he had thought it was legal if he
already owned the CDs.

It seems like the relevant section of the law (which I'd like to see and
perhaps others would as well) is the one that answers the question, if you
already own (and have paid for) a piece of music in ONE format, are you
legally entitled to the same piece in a DIFFERENT format without paying for
it?

[gonjah]

I think Lumpy is right on this one. It depends on the site:

http://riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_the_law

"The courts have consistently ruled that many peer-to-peer (P2P)
programs and other unauthorized uploading and downloading inherently
amount to copyright infringement and therefore constitute a crime."

[gonjah]

-- X-No-Archive: Yes

On 5/23/2012 5:59 PM, RichL wrote:

You have a prescription for Tylenol 3, but you ran out because your dog
ate some. Does that make it legal to buy some from the neighborhood drug
dealer? After all, you have a prescription.

[RichL]

"gonjah" <gon...@wasted.net> wrote in message
news:TbidnXXQXMVW6yDS...@posted.toastnet...

Nope, but that's because the law clearly says that it's not. All I'm saying
is that I haven't seen where the law says it's illegal to download music
that you already own. I'm not saying it's legal, all I'm saying is that I
haven't seen it.

The RIAA site you posted to isn't clear on this. It talks about a lot of
situations but not that one.

And a lot of the cases about this that I found are pretty fuzzy. YouTube,
for example, isn't an "illegal download site" although people can use it in
a way that's illegal.

It seems that a lot of the case law puts the burden on the individual and
not on the web site that enables illegal activity. That seems strange to
me. Then again, they got the bux!

[gonjah]

-- X-No-Archive: Yes

I think it is pretty clear on both cases but that might just be an opinion.

> All I'm saying is that I haven't seen where the law says it's illegal
> to download music that you already own. I'm not saying it's legal,
> all I'm saying is that I haven't seen it.
>
> The RIAA site you posted to isn't clear on this. It talks about a lot
> of situations but not that one.
>
> And a lot of the cases about this that I found are pretty fuzzy.
> YouTube, for example, isn't an "illegal download site" although people
> can use it in a way that's illegal.

Jim mention Napster originally. He mention YouTube later.

>
> It seems that a lot of the case law puts the burden on the individual
> and not on the web site that enables illegal activity. That seems
> strange to me. Then again, they got the bux!

I think it's because certain site pay royalties and others don't. P2P is
clearly illegal for copyrighted material for that reason. I can't
imagine d/l copyrighted from a uncontrolled site that has no regard for
paying fees could possibly be legal under any circumstances. The RIAA
site did mention teachers and fair use though.

Here is some "expert" advice from the internet (heh):

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/if-you-own-a-cd-or-cassette-tape-can-you-legally-d-15176.html

"Your question is a bit unclear. If you mean can you take a cd you own
and transfer the music on it from the CD onto your computer one time,
yes that is legal. If you mean can you take the cd, trasnfer the music
onto your computer and then make it available for download by others,
the answer is no. If you mean does the fact that you own a copy of the
cd permit you to download songs that are on the cd from other sources
without paying for it, my answer would be no. Ownership of the cd is not
license to download the song from somewhere else, though I admit that's
a novel concept."

I don't know what's so "novel.

Another "expert":

"But downloading a copy of the recording from someone else's library is
not lawful."

It just seems like common sense to me.

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

esha...@yahoo.com wrote:

> ...I took that picture out the window of my XK8
> Jaguar, after picking up my daughter and shopping for a gift for my
> son, on my way home, from my engineering high tech job ...

"My job" - that's a quaint concept.


Lump

[gonjah]

deafening silence

[gonjah]

-- X-No-Archive: Yes

He refuses to work with assholes.

[esha...@yahoo.com]

The world would be a much better place if more people did it... ed

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

Lump:

> > "My job" - that's a quaint concept.

ed:

> The world would be a much better place if more people did it... ed

Do it really hard, and/or be really good at it
and you can eventually stop doing it and not have
to rely on any one else, ever.

You'll have enough money to pay for things like
housing, cars, downloaded music.


Lump

[esha...@yahoo.com]

You seem to think there is something wrong with it?(Hard Work) I am good at
it, & I work hard at it. & I ENJOY the challenge of it, and interaction with
other people. You see there never is an end to learning and contributing..
and we don't have any ASSholes to deal with - casue they get FiReD pretty
quickly should one sneak in.

And EvErYThing I have IS already Paid for....


How come you have a shitty van and a deser shack ? instead on a mansion and a
fleet of vehicles? And why are you in such a hurry to stop doing it, or
interact with others?

and I even Have time for a Hobby or 2.....Woolly Bully -ed

[Jim]

I have "Lumpy" killfiled.

Those who know me know who I am, and what I do.

I'm not about to help this turd defame me by posting my personal
information.

This guy is a mega-troll. I'll stand on the credibility of those who
know me in this and other forums. As to the recent info from other
attorneys, I'll note that those opinions were formed only AFTER
complaints and litigation on the matter, and my actions predated that.

If I obtained the file in a questionable manner, fine. But I had a
legal right to possess it, and I am most certainly not a thief. Had I
seen an issue regarding the legitimacy of downloading what I had a right
to possess from that specific source, I would not have done it. If I
made a mistake, so be it. But I am not "a thief."

[Jim]

That was "hardcore?" Or are you being sarcastic?

Look, if I ever chose to pursue this joker for defamation, I have an
existing duty to mitigate my damages. For that reason, I simply CANNOT
identify myself.

I've never hidden my identity. I'm not sure when I started posting in
THIS forum, but I used to have my name in my return address. But it's
an invitation for spam, so I don't do it any more.

This whole situation is ridiculous, and I don't intend to continue the
discussion. When you step in a LUMP of poo, you scrape it off. You
don't have conversations with it.

[Jim]

On 5/22/2012 8:29 AM, esha...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 1:41:17 AM UTC-5, Craig&#39;Lumpy&#39; Lemke wrote:
>> Jim wrote:
>>> I already owned it, and didn't need to pay again in order to enjoy it
>>> in the different format...
>>
>>
>> SOMEBODY had to pay for it. The law requires that somebody to
>> be the consumer (you). The artist/producer/rights owner(s)
>> had to pay to make it downloadable, host it somewhere, pay for
>> the accounting, royalties, mechanicals, copyright registration fees,
>> etc. You don't get to "deprive the rights owner the opportunity to gain financially"
>> (copyright law terminology) just because you've already bought a different
>> format of the recording.
>>
>> If you own the physical CD, you do not own license to download.
>> It's just that simple. You have license to copy THAT CD to an
>> archive format or to transfer it to another format for play
>> on your iPod or other device for your personal use.

>>
>>> I've seen NOTHING that says I can't possess the same format
>>> converted by somebody else.
>>

>> That would be title 17 USC.
>>

>>> The important distinction is that I ALREADY PAID FOR IT.
>>
>> You haven't already paid for the download version. You've
>> paid for the physical "phonorecording".
>>
>> If you own the VHS copy of "Star Trek - Return from Dorian" you
>> don't have the right to also watch it free on subscription TV.
>> You have to pay the appropriate fee for that format.
>>
>> An even simpler argument is that you downloaded it from some site
>> that was illegally hosting it, and someone else illegally uploaded
>> it to that site, just as that kid that just got trumped by the SCOTUS did.
>> There's nothing the least bit legal about that.
>>
>>
>> Lump
>
> At least no one downloaded any of your copywrite protected songs (oh yeah there are none !!). e

He has some. They're easy to find, I listened to them quite some time
ago. I formed this opinion long before I because his target of
nonsense: The guitar playing is almost machine-like, for lack of a
better term. It sounds pedestrian, without any soul or feeling behind
the music. The recordings sound like they were done by a novice. The
one with the female vocalist has a terrible mix of vocals to guitar. In
a nutshell, unprofessional in general.

[gonjah]

-- X-No-Archive: Yes

I take issue with the "mega-troll" label. I think he really feels
passionately about piracy, and, over the years, I've come to appreciate
his stance. He knows his stuff and he'll call you on it.

He's never hid and has always posted his name and address. I haven't run
across many "trolls" that are that up front about who they are. You, and
many others, don't like him, but I don't think that makes him a troll. YMMV.

The definition of thief? If, in the past, you d/l music illegally, in
the technical sense, you'd be a thief. Maybe now you're a reformed
thief. You know the saying: Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[RichL]

"gonjah" <gon...@wasted.net> wrote in message

news:S9WdnbdFOIEQEyPS...@posted.toastnet...

> He's never hid and has always posted his name and address. I haven't run
> across many "trolls" that are that up front about who they are. You, and
> many others, don't like him, but I don't think that makes him a troll.
> YMMV.

I've only seen two people in newsgroups that I frequent AGGRESSIVELY post
their names and addresses, in the middle of a confrontation with someone
else: Lumpy and Lord Valve. Birds of a feather, in my book. As if someone
is actually going to go to those places with the intent of doing harm.
People like that simply go out of their way to antagonize others. And their
typical response to those who call them on it? "You don't like it?
Killfile me."

Neither one of them would have the stones to show up in a public place where
one of their "victims" is present. In the case of LV, we know that for a
fact. He chickened out when given the opportunity.

C'mon, be real. This is nothing but cowardly, hero-behind-the-keyboard
taunting.

And I've only seen ONE person in newsgroups that I frequent actually go
behind the scenes and dig up supposed REAL LIFE dirt on someone else in that
newsgroup in order to maintain a perceived advantage. That would be our
Self-Designated Newsgroup Guru.

Maybe he doesn't conform to the strict definition of a troll (I really don't
know what that means; I've seen it used so many different ways).
Troublemaker? Yep.

The worst that can be said about Jim is that he misunderstood the law.
Before the well-publicized cases on file sharing etc., I'm betting that a
LOT of people misunderstood the law. To call those people criminals and
thieves is way over the top.

As for Jim, I don't know him in the sense of having met him in real life,
but he's always conducted himself in newsgroups in a way that's beyond
reproach. We've exchanged some info off-line (ALWAYS on-topic), and I have
no reason to doubt his sincerity. That's not to say that he's never gotten
into disagreements with people in newsgroups; who hasn't?

But he doesn't pull this silly newsgroup "King of the Mountain" crap that
Lumpy and LV do.

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

esha...@yahoo.com wrote:

> You seem to think there is something wrong with it?(Hard Work) I am
> good at it, & I work hard at it. & I ENJOY the challenge of it, and
> interaction with other people. You see there never is an end to
> learning and contributing.. and we don't have any ASSholes to deal
> with - casue they get FiReD pretty quickly should one sneak in.
>
> And EvErYThing I have IS already Paid for....
>
>
> How come you have a shitty van and a deser shack ? instead on a
> mansion and a fleet of vehicles? And why are you in such a hurry to
> stop doing it, or interact with others?

Why do you think I think there's something wrong with hard work?
I worked hard at everything I ever did, and still do.

If you think me or anyone else in the universe will believe that
you don't work with assholes, you're on crack.

I've got a van that I really dig building, a huge 3x4 pickup,
little Honda car, horse trailer, anything I want. All paid for
all at once. Never had a loan.

Mansions? Not sure where the category starts. I have several
homes in AZ, CA, Mexico. Not sure any would qualify as "mansion"
status. Maybe the one in Mexico. Every one of them is the size
I chose, not settled for.

I'm there baby. Worked for all of it. Enjoyed the heck out of
getting there and being there now.

How come you drive that shitty, squat to the ground Jag
piece of poo?


Lump

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

RichL wrote:

> The worst that can be said about Jim is that he misunderstood the law.
> Before the well-publicized cases on file sharing etc., I'm betting
> that a LOT of people misunderstood the law. To call those people
> criminals and thieves is way over the top.

> ...he's always conducted himself in newsgroups in a way that's beyond
> reproach

You're a fuckin piece of work, Rich.

If Jim is so "beyond reproach" then why does he post under several
different screen names, try to antagonize me by saying I'm afraid
to post my contact information, yet refuses to post his?

May I have your permission to categorize you into the same category
as that worthless piece of shit who thinks stealing is acceptable?

I'm not calling anyone out to "meet in public". I'm posting my
opinions and NOT hiding behind an anonymous screen name. I've
done that with every single post I've ever made, in every
single forum I've ever posted for.

I'm no anonymous troll. I'm a guy that doesn't care for
certain kinds of people. Thieves is one. If you or anyone
else wants to come to a forum I frequent and brag about how
you are a thief, I'll do everything I can to get you a
permanant prom date in the gray bar hotel.


Lump

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

Jim wrote:

> Look, if I ever chose to pursue this joker for defamation, I have an
> existing duty to mitigate my damages. For that reason, I simply
> CANNOT identify myself.

Come on you fucking thief. You're a criminal. You're
unethically posing as a lawyer. You belong in prison.
Sue me you worthless, unethical criminal.

Go get your daddy and bring on the big guns because
I will shove your criminal ethics so far up your ass
your eyeballs will hurt.

You fucking criminal. Pussy afraid to identify himself.

Come and get my ass.

[RichL]

"Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke" <lu...@LumpyMusic.com> wrote in message

news:jpm6fc$18a$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> RichL wrote:
>
>> The worst that can be said about Jim is that he misunderstood the law.
>> Before the well-publicized cases on file sharing etc., I'm betting
>> that a LOT of people misunderstood the law. To call those people
>> criminals and thieves is way over the top.
>
>> ...he's always conducted himself in newsgroups in a way that's beyond
>> reproach
>
> You're a fuckin piece of work, Rich.

So you've said before. You seem to devolve into shit-slinging whenever
anyone disagrees with you. Why is that?

>
> If Jim is so "beyond reproach" then why does he post under several
> different screen names

He does? What are they? The only name I've seen him post under is Jim
(sometimes capitalized, sometimes not).

> try to antagonize me by saying I'm afraid to post my contact information,
> yet refuses to post his?

I just looked through every one of Jim's posts in this thread, and I didn't
see anything from him that accused you of being afraid to post your contact
information. Where was that? In another thread?

>
> May I have your permission to categorize you into the same category
> as that worthless piece of shit who thinks stealing is acceptable?

Some quotes from Jim in this thread:

"It WAS "just something that kids do," but it was also wrong and illegal. "

"Had I seen an issue regarding the legitimacy of downloading what I had a
right to possess from that specific source, I would not have done it. If I
made a mistake, so be it."

NOTHING he wrote in this thread indicates that he thinks stealing is
acceptable. You're just making that up because you've got your nose out of
joint.

From what I've seen, he misunderstood the law. He may still misunderstand
it; I don't know, because I'm not an expert in the law.

>
> I'm not calling anyone out to "meet in public". I'm posting my
> opinions and NOT hiding behind an anonymous screen name. I've
> done that with every single post I've ever made, in every
> single forum I've ever posted for.

Likewise. So what? The ONLY time you seem to raise the issue is when
you're tangoing with someone else. Why even bring it up? Anyone with a
modicum of intelligence can find out where you live, where I live, where Jim
lives.

>
> I'm no anonymous troll. I'm a guy that doesn't care for
> certain kinds of people. Thieves is one. If you or anyone
> else wants to come to a forum I frequent and brag about how
> you are a thief, I'll do everything I can to get you a
> permanant prom date in the gray bar hotel.

You're friggin' Gladys Kravitz, like one of those "born again" people who
has to butt into other people's lives. Jim didn't "brag" about stealing
anything. At worst, he made an innocent mistake.

Jesus, get over yourself.

[Jim]

Do you take issue with him calling me "a thief?"

I think he really feels
> passionately about piracy, and, over the years, I've come to appreciate
> his stance. He knows his stuff and he'll call you on it.
>
> He's never hid and has always posted his name and address. I haven't run
> across many "trolls" that are that up front about who they are. You, and
> many others, don't like him,

At this point, true. Before calling me "a thief," I just didn't like
how he lied about Pt. And I don't even know Pt. It was just patently
offensive.

> but I don't think that makes him a troll.

At a minimum, it made him a liar.

> YMMV.
>
> The definition of thief? If, in the past, you d/l music illegally, in
> the technical sense, you'd be a thief. Maybe now you're a reformed
> thief. You know the saying: Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Is a person a thief if he has the legal right to possess the property in
question?

At most, I acquired the file in a "questionable" manner that raises
eyebrows now, but would've raised very few, if any, at the time that I
acquired it.

THE END.

>
>

[gonjah]

On 5/24/2012 3:35 PM, Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke wrote:
> esha...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> You seem to think there is something wrong with it?(Hard Work) I am

>> good at it,& I work hard at it.& I ENJOY the challenge of it, and

Sam Walton drove an old truck.

[esha...@yahoo.com]

You asked me why I work, and if I worked had enough I wouldn't have to.. - I work because I like to.

I drive a - make that 2 Jags ( XK8 Coupe or V12 conv.),, a Suburban, & a Yaris ( I get cheap sometimes for gas reasons) and a Boat , ATV and a Lawn tractor ( cause I have a huge lawn). I drive the XK8 jag cause it is one of the best looking cars on the road (and payed $75K cash for it, because I wanted it), and I have been a Jag man since I was 20.
What the hell is a 3x4 ? you should really put that tire back on !!
I'm happy you worked hard and are enjoying what you have done. I am doing the same ( stop knocking my hobby and I'll leave you alone).
Belive me there are No assholes here - there is NO room for that anymore..Lean and mean is the way of this corporate world I work in.
At least were not Democrats................. e

[gonjah]

On 5/24/2012 3:30 PM, RichL wrote:
> "gonjah" <gon...@wasted.net> wrote in message
> news:S9WdnbdFOIEQEyPS...@posted.toastnet...
>
>> He's never hid and has always posted his name and address. I haven't
>> run across many "trolls" that are that up front about who they are.
>> You, and many others, don't like him, but I don't think that makes
>> him a troll. YMMV.
>
> I've only seen two people in newsgroups that I frequent AGGRESSIVELY
> post their names and addresses, in the middle of a confrontation with
> someone else: Lumpy and Lord Valve. Birds of a feather, in my book.
> As if someone is actually going to go to those places with the intent
> of doing harm. People like that simply go out of their way to
> antagonize others. And their typical response to those who call them
> on it? "You don't like it? Killfile me."

LV post ridicules nonsense he doesn't even believe in. Lumpy seems to
have principles.

>
> Neither one of them would have the stones to show up in a public place
> where one of their "victims" is present. In the case of LV, we know
> that for a fact. He chickened out when given the opportunity.
>
> C'mon, be real. This is nothing but cowardly,
> hero-behind-the-keyboard taunting.
>
> And I've only seen ONE person in newsgroups that I frequent actually
> go behind the scenes and dig up supposed REAL LIFE dirt on someone
> else in that newsgroup in order to maintain a perceived advantage.
> That would be our Self-Designated Newsgroup Guru.
>
> Maybe he doesn't conform to the strict definition of a troll (I really
> don't know what that means; I've seen it used so many different ways).
> Troublemaker? Yep.

>
> The worst that can be said about Jim is that he misunderstood the law.
> Before the well-publicized cases on file sharing etc., I'm betting
> that a LOT of people misunderstood the law. To call those people
> criminals and thieves is way over the top.

The "misunderstanding", to me, seemed like a obvious infraction.

>
>
> As for Jim, I don't know him in the sense of having met him in real
> life, but he's always conducted himself in newsgroups in a way that's
> beyond reproach. We've exchanged some info off-line (ALWAYS
> on-topic), and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity. That's not to
> say that he's never gotten into disagreements with people in
> newsgroups; who hasn't?
>
> But he doesn't pull this silly newsgroup "King of the Mountain" crap
> that Lumpy and LV do.

Again, I see a difference. Standing up against piracy is something I
think you would appreciate if it wasn't done with so much vulgarity.
It's not our style, but it did get attention. Some people only respond
to yelling.

[Jim]

As far as I'm concerned, my biggest failing is this matter was giving
Craig to satisfaction of being drawn into this LUMP of crap in the first
place. I try to IGNORE TROLLS. But his blatant lies about Pt hit a
nerve, so I commented.

Maybe people need to read the original message to remember what this is
all about???

Pt never went to jail. Pt couldn't be going back to jail. Pt didn't
say the phoney quote supplied by Craig.

I don't like liars, and I don't like trolls.

Craig posted defamatory lies to cause a mess in this forum. That much
is beyond question, and that's a troll in my book!

If these guys want to use 20/20 hindsight with the benefit of the
litigation and prosecutions for fines (for SHARING files that they never
even paid for) in questioning how I acquired a file that I had the right
to possess (since I already purchased the CD)... I can live with that.
But at the same time, they need to recognize Craig for his lies that
started this mess.

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

Lump:

> > If Jim is so "beyond reproach" then why does he post under several
> > different screen names

RichL:

> He does? What are they? The only name I've seen him post under is
> Jim (sometimes capitalized, sometimes not).

Oh for fuck's sake again, Rich.
Either start reading or take that god dammed little
shit stained finger of yours and make it move your
mouse up to the BLOCK tab and quit reading me.

Goddam you're a glutten for punishment.

What do you want me to do, exactly? Turn over a new leaf
and become the anti-asshole? Love everyone here including
those that I dispise with a passion and would like to see
in jail? Not going to happen, Rich. So either tolerate
me or get the fuck out of my posts.


Lump

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

Jim wrote:
> At most, I acquired the file in a "questionable" ...

Post your name and contact information. Thief.
We'll find out how the bar and the justice systems
feels about how "questionable" your criminal behavior is.


Lump

[gonjah]

On 5/24/2012 4:42 PM, gonjah wrote:
> On 5/24/2012 3:30 PM, RichL wrote:
>> "gonjah" <gon...@wasted.net> wrote in message
>> news:S9WdnbdFOIEQEyPS...@posted.toastnet...
>>
>>> He's never hid and has always posted his name and address. I haven't
>>> run across many "trolls" that are that up front about who they are.
>>> You, and many others, don't like him, but I don't think that makes
>>> him a troll. YMMV.
>>
>> I've only seen two people in newsgroups that I frequent AGGRESSIVELY
>> post their names and addresses, in the middle of a confrontation with
>> someone else: Lumpy and Lord Valve. Birds of a feather, in my book.
>> As if someone is actually going to go to those places with the intent
>> of doing harm. People like that simply go out of their way to
>> antagonize others. And their typical response to those who call them
>> on it? "You don't like it? Killfile me."
>
> LV post ridicules nonsense he doesn't even believe in. Lumpy seems to
> have principles.

"ridiculous"

Probably a sign I need to get out of this thread. ;) <snip>

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

Jim wrote:

> Pt never went to jail...

How do you know, Controll, oh I mean Jim?

Besides the obvious satire in my OP, how do you know PT
hasn't been in jail? He's come here multiple times and
admitted to criminal behavior and even teased me or anyone
else to do whatever we want with his statements.

But it's your criminal ass I want now.

What's your name and contact info?
If you're scared to disclose that, send me the
name and contact info of your attorney. That should
eliminate any problems with spam or harassment or
whatever else you think is problematic with disclosing here.

Send it to me via email (my address is valid) or to my snail
mail below.

Or just get that lawsuit for defamation cookin and serve me.
It's hotter than hell here in Phoenix for the next three months
or so, so I suggest arranging the series of court dates at least
after the summer passes. Surely you understand that if you try and
serve me in your jurisdiction, I'll file for and win a motion for
change of venue. Welcome to Phoenix, criminal. Maybe we can book
a floor mat for you in Sheriff Joe's tent city.

[Jim]

On 5/24/2012 2:04 PM, RichL wrote:
> "Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke" <lu...@LumpyMusic.com> wrote in message
> news:jpm6fc$18a$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> RichL wrote:
>>
>>> The worst that can be said about Jim is that he misunderstood the law.
>>> Before the well-publicized cases on file sharing etc., I'm betting
>>> that a LOT of people misunderstood the law. To call those people
>>> criminals and thieves is way over the top.
>>
>>> ...he's always conducted himself in newsgroups in a way that's beyond
>>> reproach
>>
>> You're a fuckin piece of work, Rich.
>
> So you've said before. You seem to devolve into shit-slinging whenever
> anyone disagrees with you. Why is that?
>>
>> If Jim is so "beyond reproach" then why does he post under several
>> different screen names

Yet ANOTHER lie!

>
> He does? What are they? The only name I've seen him post under is Jim
> (sometimes capitalized, sometimes not).
>
>> try to antagonize me by saying I'm afraid to post my contact
>> information, yet refuses to post his?

WHEN AND WHERE? I guarantee you it wasn't me, because I know who you
are and where you are.

You're confused.

FACT: In the past when you acted really pissy towards me, it turned out
that you had me confused with a different Jim.

I post from two machines. The return address is nearly identical. It
is not a legitimate address, because of SPAM.

>
> I just looked through every one of Jim's posts in this thread, and I
> didn't see anything from him that accused you of being afraid to post
> your contact information. Where was that? In another thread?
>>
>> May I have your permission to categorize you into the same category
>> as that worthless piece of shit who thinks stealing is acceptable?
>
> Some quotes from Jim in this thread:
>
> "It WAS "just something that kids do," but it was also wrong and illegal. "
>
> "Had I seen an issue regarding the legitimacy of downloading what I had
> a right to possess from that specific source, I would not have done it.
> If I made a mistake, so be it."
>
> NOTHING he wrote in this thread indicates that he thinks stealing is
> acceptable. You're just making that up because you've got your nose out
> of joint.
>
> From what I've seen, he misunderstood the law.

At a time before the law with respect to MP3's wasn't even fleshed out!
It could've gone in a completely different direction.

[RichL]

"gonjah" <gonjah.net> wrote in message
news:Se2dnfZLNuraNiPS...@posted.toastnet...

>> But he doesn't pull this silly newsgroup "King of the Mountain" crap that
>> Lumpy and LV do.
>
> Again, I see a difference. Standing up against piracy is something I think
> you would appreciate if it wasn't done with so much vulgarity. It's not
> our style, but it did get attention. Some people only respond to yelling.

I do appreciate it. I do understand that it's a serious issue. But I also
understand that a lot of people engaged in it before there was a lot of
publicity about it and assumed that if a web site allowed it, it must be
legal.

We've gotten a lot more sophisticated in our thinking now, much as a result
of that publicity.

Jim did not *intentionally* break the law. That much is clear from his
posts.

I don't appreciate people who use bullying tactics rather than logic and
reason to deal with people that they disagree with. Lumpy's flexing his
muscles, flaunting his wealth, and making a big show in this newsgroup.
He's an insecure coward, just like Lord Valve. His words here border on
libel. Of course, in his big show, he's careful to say "that's my opinion"
to avoid a libel lawsuit, which would otherwise stand on much firmer ground
than the goofy "disbarred and prosecuted" threat that Keyboard Hero issued.

Empty words. There will be no attempt on Lumpy's part to get Jim disbarred.
It's all show; it's performance art, put forth for our supposed amusement.
Lumpy may be wealthy but he's not a fool with his money, and he knows damned
well that nothing Jim has said in this newsgroup comes close to meriting
disbarrment. He's throwing his weight around, like he always does.

The record in this newsgroup is clear; neither Jim nor Lumpy does the "X-No
Archive" thing. It's all laid out there in black and white. Lumpy would be
laughed out of court. His own lawyers would tell him that. They'd laugh,
too.

This clown is so far over the top it isn't funny. Issuing threats? C'mon,
man.

[gonjah]

Looks like you better take the lump out of your killfile. ;)

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

Lump:

> > > If Jim is so "beyond reproach" then why does he post under several
> > > different screen names

Jim:
> Yet ANOTHER lie!

Now wait. I thought you stopped reading my posts?

You're a thief AND a liar AND scared to identify yourself.

Again -
Send your contact info or your attorney's contact info to me.
If you believe you have a leg to stand on.

[RichL]

"Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke" <lu...@LumpyMusic.com> wrote in message

news:jpma7q$ai7$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> Lump:
>> > If Jim is so "beyond reproach" then why does he post under several
>> > different screen names
>
> RichL:
>> He does? What are they? The only name I've seen him post under is
>> Jim (sometimes capitalized, sometimes not).
>
> Oh for fuck's sake again, Rich.
> Either start reading or take that god dammed little
> shit stained finger of yours and make it move your
> mouse up to the BLOCK tab and quit reading me.

You're confused. Seriously. You said you thought the "Jim" you're pissed
at is from Austin. That's the wrong Jim, a Jim who has, in fact, changed
his name several times. The one from Austin. I'm guessing he'll confirm
that, since he's participating in this thread.

The "Jim" you accuse of "stealing" has never, to my knowledge, used a name
here other than "Jim" or "jim". And he's not from Austin.

You probably also confused your "Jims" when you made the accusation that he
said you were afraid to post your contact information.

If you're going to start suing people, it might help if you get straight
who's who first.

>
> Goddam you're a glutten for punishment.
>
> What do you want me to do, exactly? Turn over a new leaf
> and become the anti-asshole? Love everyone here including
> those that I dispise with a passion and would like to see
> in jail? Not going to happen, Rich. So either tolerate
> me or get the fuck out of my posts.

You don't like what I have to say, you know what to do. You're HIGHLY
exaggerating the supposed offense, you're acting like a fool with your
lawsuit/disbarrment bullshit, and I'm going to call you on it. Don't like
it? Don't read me. It's that simple. I'll tolerate you when you act like
a sentient being, I'll even engage you in constructive conversation when
you're not acting like an asshole. When you are acting like an asshole,
I'll say you are.

One thing I'll never do: pussy out on an on-topic conversation with 12
consecutive "fuck yourself" responses because I'm afraid to engage in a
constructive debate.

Jim did not *intentionally* engage in an illegal act. Period, end of story.

[RichL]

"Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke" <lu...@LumpyMusic.com> wrote in message

news:jpmb0c$c3t$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> Jim wrote:
>
>> Pt never went to jail...
>
> How do you know, Controll, oh I mean Jim?

Wrong Jim. Again. And "Controll" isn't EITHER of the two Jims who are
currently participating in this thread!

Do you even know how to read a header?

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

gonjah wrote:

> Looks like you better take the lump out of your killfile. ;)

I don't think he has to. Actually I don't believe I am in his
killfile, or anyone else's killfile.

The "I'm killfiling you" declaration is the equivalent of
holding your hands over hour ears and yelling "NA NA NA
I CAN'T HEAR YOU". It takes an extremely weak personality
to come to an alt newsgroup, of all places, and then declare
that he's killfiling someone.

I get ten bazillion email spams daily. They filter through my
spam filters every four minutes. That tiny amount of work is
well worth it to allow me to stand up like a man and be proud
of everything I've ever posted. To NEVER have killfiled anyone.
To ALWAYS have invited an eFight by anyone that I disagree with.

Anyone who has never enjoyed the delight and honor of standing
up for themselves is missing out, big time.

I respect someone who isn't afraid to identify themself. Even
if I think their philosophy is totally adverse to mine. But if
someone just wants to whine, and remain anonymous, they get
no respect from me. They get mega-asshole NG personna.

Part of the glorious aspect of my retired lifestyle is that I
don't have any bosses or employers to coddle to. I don't have
to "mind my P's and Q's" or watch what kind of opinions I
publish. Some of you with jobs (all of you with jobs?) probably
aren't allowed such freedom.

So some of you will have to remain reserved. But if you want to
be anonymous AND argue and tell it like it is, you're not telling me a thing.
If you don't have a name, you DON'T have an argument. So in that
situation, YOU are the one's who should mind your P's and Q's.
Keep your opinions safe and on topic. Don't rattle sabres or
poke hornet's nests. Because the big hornet with the big sabre
will come out and poke back.

Lump - World's Most Opinionated Man
Envy of All Lesser Men
Now Taking Musical Questions
Warning: Extremely Crappy Music will get an Extremely Crappy Review

[esha...@yahoo.com]

>
> Part of the glorious aspect of my retired lifestyle is that I
> don't have any bosses or employers to coddle to. I don't have
> to "mind my P's and Q's" or watch what kind of opinions I
> publish. Some of you with jobs (all of you with jobs?) probably
> aren't allowed such freedom.

+++++++ Ohhh Hourse shit Lumpy - I work with adults and NO Assholes are allowed. WE are speak as we wish.

>
> Lump - World's Most Opinionated Man
> Envy of All Lesser Men
> Now Taking Musical Questions
> Warning: Extremely Crappy Music will get an Extremely Crappy Review

That makes you sound delusional.. You did inhale saving Weiro!!!!
..E

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

RichL wrote:

> The "Jim" you accuse of "stealing" has never, to my knowledge, used a
> name here other than "Jim" or "jim". And he's not from Austin.

You have exactly as much knowledge of this "Jim" guy as I do.

Now go back to fucking yourself. I enjoy watching you post.
Remember, I'm a recently released from prison mental patient.


Lump

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

esha...@yahoo.com wrote:

> I work with adults and NO Assholes
> are allowed. WE are speak as we wish.

NO workplace, No hobby group, NO gathering of humans
is without assholes. None.

Maybe it's you that's the asshole. But everyone else
is afraid to tell you.



Lump

[RichL]

"Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke" <lu...@LumpyMusic.com> wrote in message

news:jpn1ui$pgj$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> RichL wrote:
>
>> The "Jim" you accuse of "stealing" has never, to my knowledge, used a
>> name here other than "Jim" or "jim". And he's not from Austin.
>
> You have exactly as much knowledge of this "Jim" guy as I do.

That is manifestly false. If you were able to read and properly interpret a
header, you'd know it was false.

If you had any recollection of the past posting history of both Jim from
Austin and Jim not from Austin, you'd also know it was false. It's all
here, right in the archives of this newsgroup.

I could link to past posts in this group that would clearly indicate that
there are, in fact, two Jims, and that you're confusing the two of them.
But you're such a resourceful fellow, maybe you could put that Keyboard Hero
prowess to constructive use and do it yourself. Or maybe Jim from Austin
could clarify the situation himself.

Or you could continue to make an ass of yourself. Your choice.

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

Lump:

> > You have exactly as much knowledge of this "Jim" guy as I do.

RichL:

> That is manifestly false. If you were able to read and properly
> interpret a header, you'd know it was false.

Up your manifest, whatever the hell that is.
You don't know Jim from Jim any more than shit from shinola.

There's only two people on this list you know true the identity of.
Jim isn't one of them.


Lump

[esha...@yahoo.com]

How the hell do you know – sitting in your desert shack with little interaction
with the real world.
Presuming you are the “Know All”. There are all different kinds of talent
required to make things happen – But REAL assholes are a distraction to a
productive effort and get flushed out.. Guess what – we don’t need them, or
tolerate there rage.

But the fool on the hill,
Sees the sun going down,
And the eyes in his head,
See the world spinning 'round.

Ooh, ooh,
Round and round and round.

And he never listens to them,
He knows that they're the fools
They don't like him,

Shall we thake a poll and see who is the biggest asshole posting on this goup.
I'll be its You#1... ed

[RichL]

"Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke" <lu...@LumpyMusic.com> wrote in message

news:jpo1ji$786$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

There are at least five people who post here on a regular basis whose
identities I know as well as I know yours. For all I know, you could be
some guy in Nigeria who's created a fake web site making it look like you
live in Arizona for the purposes of scamming money out of people. Crazy?
Probably, but it's theoretically possible. In many ways, I know more about
those other five people than I know about you.

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

RichL wrote:

> ...For all I know, you could

> be some guy in Nigeria who's created a fake web site making it look
> like you live in Arizona for the purposes of scamming money out of

> people...

I used to do that. Now I'm a serial killer asking for people's
home addresses. I sneak over to their homes late at night and
plant scorpion nests in their guitar cases.


Lump

[Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke]

esha...@yahoo.com wrote:

> ...But REAL assholes are a

> distraction to a productive effort and get flushed out.. Guess what
> – we don’t need them, or tolerate there rage.

Those are pure amateur assholes. Asshole posers.
I am the only asshole that matters on the interweb
or anywhere else in your life. That's why you keep
telling me I'm an asshole. You have a need to re-affirm
that to yourself. I've been comfortable with it from
Gen I.


Lump

[Bernie Woodham]

On May 25, 10:51 am, "Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke" <lu...@LumpyMusic.com>
wrote:

I hardly ever use my guitar case. The scorpion would probably die
before it had a chance to kill me.

You better work on a better technique if you ever want to hunt me
down.

But, I am definitely a beginner, so I don't know what threat I would
pose. But maybe you just delight in killing anyone.

[gonjah]

-- X-No-Archive: Yes

Natural born killer he is.