Piracy steps up its game

[td]

http://classicalmuzic.net/full-philips-records-great-pianists-of-the-20th-century-200-cds-eacapecuelogbooklet-easyly-to-download-enjoy

And if you look further you will find most, if not all, of the recent
boxed sets available on this glossy site.

Copyright? What's that?

TD

[Dana John Hill]

Yeah, but on the DMCA page, he insists that these files are for "preview
purposes only". That should satisfy the lawyers!

Dana John Hill
Gainesville, Florida

[Steve de Mena]

He/She doesn't host any files, either. They're just links to files
stored elsewhere.

Steve

[William Sommerwerck]

"Easyly to download"?

I am not the only person to suggest that when a publisher stops publishing a
piece of intellectual property, it implicitly abandons its copyright.

The Constitution states that the purpose of patents and copyrights is to
encourage people to create intellectual property and make it available.
However, few people interpret that as strictly as I would like to see it
interpreted.

[Gerard]

William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> typed:

> "Easyly to download"?
>
> I am not the only person to suggest that when a publisher stops
> publishing a piece of intellectual property, it implicitly abandons
> its copyright.

Not being the only person does not guarantee something useful.

>
> The Constitution states that the purpose of patents and copyrights is
> to encourage people to create intellectual property and make it
> available. However, few people interpret that as strictly as I would
> like to see it interpreted.

So it should be interpreted your way?

[wagnerfan]

WOW!!!!! Wagner Fan

[Christopher Webber]

On 18/05/2013 16:23, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> I am not the only person to suggest that when a publisher stops
> publishing a piece of intellectual property, it implicitly abandons its
> copyright.

I suppose anybody might "suggest" such a thing. But mere suggestion
doesn't make it an argument which would be seriously entertained in any
court of law, either side of the Pond.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> I am not the only person to suggest that when a publisher stops
>> publishing a piece of intellectual property, it implicitly abandons
>> its copyright.

> I suppose anybody might "suggest" such a thing. But mere
> suggestion doesn't make it an argument which would be
> seriously entertained in any court of law, either side of the Pond.

Perhaps it's time it were entertained.

Ever heard of "The Dog in the Manger"? The concept is similar (though not
absolutely identical).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dog_in_the_Manger

[Bob Harper]

These are items that are readily available, so it's difficult to see
this as anything but theft. I do agree that the original intent of the
Constitution's provision on copyright ('for limited times') has been
perverted, and that the law should include a 'use it or lose it'
provision. But this site goes too far.

Bob Harper

[William Sommerwerck]

"Bob Harper" wrote in message
news:S2Plt.11821$d9....@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com...

If $4800 for the first box and $2000 for the second box, and $100 for
individual sets is "readily available", then, I suppose it is.

I'm of two minds here. I realize publishers can't always keep every title in
print indefinitely. But given the long-term value of this set, you would think
Philips would make an effort.

Publishers have forgotten the concept of a subscription. Schabel's BPS edition
was paid for by subscription. Why not reissue such sets, ten albums at a time,
by subscription?

[Christopher Webber]

On 18/05/2013 18:34, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> Ever heard of "The Dog in the Manger"? The concept is similar (though
> not absolutely identical).

Hardly relevant: the Dog neither owns the Manger, nor produced,
manufactured or marketed it.

[Any physical similarity between dogs and recording executives is purely
coincidental]

[David Fox]

On 5/18/13 8:23 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

I don't think that piracy has "upped it's game." These sorts of sites
have proliferated for well over a decade. I also don't think these
sites have a very significant effect on classical music sales,
especially box sets for a number of reasons. First, the demographic of
big-ticket classical music purchasers is skewed older, as significantly
different from the demographic of gigabyte-level downloaders as could
possibly be imagined. Based on my conversations both verbal and online
with fellow serious collectors, I haven't sensed that piracy has
significantly curtailed purchasing budgets. The economy surely has, but
that is another matter. Downloading may give some the opportunity to
partake in more music they might otherwise, but it hasn't really
displaced purchase activity. The reduction of new release schedules and
retail availability has reduced purchase activity, but the dynamics
driving these trends were not driven by classical music per se.

For the most part, those who will have the know-how, the hardware, the
high-speed connections, and the disposable time to expend the effort to
download 50 GB of recordings are not those who would ever have seriously
entertain buying these boxes in the first place. Many of them are
students and many of them do not reside in first-world economies. The
RIAA loves to count every download as a lost sale, but that is a purely
rhetorical argument. A poor young classical music enthusiast in Romania
is never going to buy both GPOC boxes, whether they sell for $200 or
$2000. Maybe one of these youngsters will become a billionaire
classical enthusiast someday. That's the only way they will ever impact
the economics of classical music recordings one way or another.

Piracy of popular music is another story. In the mid-1990's Alanis
Morissette sold 20-odd copies of a single album. This will never happen
again. In the current environment, a similarly successful release would
do well to sell a quarter of that amount. That is the direct effect of
piracy. I believe classical music was only indirectly impacted. When
the major labels were swimming in Pop/Rock/Rap CD cash, they could
afford to be more generous with cultural loss-leaders. Not anymore.

I'm not stating any of the above as a justification for piracy. I'm
just trying to put it in perspective with respect to classical recordings.

DF

[Dana John Hill]

The aspect of copyright interpretation in the USA that I find
unnaturally contradictory is the protection of copyright for so long
after the creator's death. I by no means wish to take food from the
mouths of the widows and orphans of artists, but strict enforcement of
copyright protections certainly isn't encouraging, say, Samuel Barber,
to write any more music.

[maready]

On May 18, 10:01 am, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
> http://classicalmuzic.net/full-philips-records-great-pianists-of-the-...

>
> And if you look further you will find most, if not all, of the recent
> boxed sets available on this glossy site.
>
> Copyright? What's that?
>
> TD

Thanks for the link!

[Christopher Webber]

On 18/05/2013 20:32, Dana John Hill wrote:
> The aspect of copyright interpretation in the USA that I find
> unnaturally contradictory is the protection of copyright for so long
> after the creator's death. I by no means wish to take food from the
> mouths of the widows and orphans of artists, but strict enforcement of
> copyright protections certainly isn't encouraging, say, Samuel Barber,
> to write any more music.

Composers such as Sullivan in England, and Strauss in Germany, fought
heroically to establish copyright protection. Remember, that by not
wanting to pay royalties to dead composers when their works are
performed, one effectively *is* taking food from the mouths of his
widows, orphans, and grandchildren.

A composer's music is his Real Estate. Why cheat his nearest and dearest
out of their inheritance?

We wouldn't dream of taking the milk from a dead farmer's cows and
giving it away free, now would we?

[David Fox]

The GPOC has been available for free on Usenet groups, Rapidshare,
Hotfile, etc for over ten years. Yet Ebay and Amazon have continually
registered sales for used sets and certain individual volumes for
significant premiums throughout this time frame. The cheapest current
used offering for Richter III (Vol. 84) on Amazon Marketplace is $65.
This is not an isolated off-the-market offer, either. According to The
Law of One Price, this can only be the case if the goods are
qualitatively different, the markets are separate and distinct, or both.
This serves as supporting data for the points I set forth above.


DF

[William Sommerwerck]

"Christopher Webber" wrote in message
news:avqbog...@mid.individual.net...

A poor analogy. Cow's don't give milk unless they're properly fed and
intended -- which requires human labor.

[O]

In article <avqbog...@mid.individual.net>, Christopher Webber

<zarz...@zarzuela.invalid.net> wrote:

> On 18/05/2013 20:32, Dana John Hill wrote:
> > The aspect of copyright interpretation in the USA that I find
> > unnaturally contradictory is the protection of copyright for so long
> > after the creator's death. I by no means wish to take food from the
> > mouths of the widows and orphans of artists, but strict enforcement of
> > copyright protections certainly isn't encouraging, say, Samuel Barber,
> > to write any more music.
>
> Composers such as Sullivan in England, and Strauss in Germany, fought
> heroically to establish copyright protection. Remember, that by not
> wanting to pay royalties to dead composers when their works are
> performed, one effectively *is* taking food from the mouths of his
> widows, orphans, and grandchildren.

I draw the line at grandchildren. There's no reason why one should
depend on their grandparents for their life support. Go out and earn
your own way. There's no need for society to protect the earnings of
Walt Disney's grandchildren.

>
> A composer's music is his Real Estate. Why cheat his nearest and dearest
> out of their inheritance?

Nursing homes often cause people to lose their real estate. Are they
being cheated?

-Owen

[John Wiser]

Damn right they are.
Profit motive in health care is an obscenity.
You're a moral blank, Hartnett,
so you can't comprehend this.

jdw

[O]

In article <YXWlt.6550$9X5....@newsfe31.iad>, John Wiser

You're right, I can't comprehend it. If we can take real estate from
old people, what's so special about their intellectual property we've
got to preserve it for their grandkids?

-Owen, Moral Blank.

[Christopher Webber]

On 19/05/2013 03:35, O wrote:
> Nursing homes often cause people to lose their real estate. Are they
> being cheated?

Interestingly, one of the main policy planks of our present
Conservative-led government in the UK is to legislate to make sure that
the nursing homes DON'T cheat people out of their real estate. It has
great popular support!

[Christopher Webber]

On 19/05/2013 06:14, O wrote:
> If we can take real estate from
> old people, what's so special about their intellectual property we've
> got to preserve it for their grandkids?

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because you get the real estate
question wrong doesn't mean you should extend the error to intellectual
property. And c.f. what is happening in the UK, as per my previous post.

[Frank Berger]

There's something wrong with old people using their accumulated wealth to
"buy" nursing-home care? If society "owes" free nursing home care to old
people, all they have to do is convert all their wealth into real estate and
free-ride on society.

(written by an old person).

[Christopher Webber]

On 19/05/2013 12:51, Frank Berger wrote:
>
> There's something wrong with old people using their accumulated wealth
> to "buy" nursing-home care? If society "owes" free nursing home care to
> old people, all they have to do is convert all their wealth into real
> estate and free-ride on society.

We order things differently here in Europe! There's no free ride: most
of our social benefits benefits are capped, or means tested, and the new
fiscal "Care Provisions" will be both.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Frank Berger" wrote in message
news:l-edneHKwI8rIQXM...@supernews.com...

> There's something wrong with old people using their accumulated
> wealth to "buy" nursing-home care? If society "owes" free nursing
> home care to old people, all they have to do is convert all their
> wealth into real estate and free-ride on society.
> (written by an old person)

You are deliberately mis-defining the situation.

There's no free lunch. Everything has to be paid for, in one way or another.

"Society" can decide that old-age care is the humane thing to do. The costs
could be covered by an insurance program, voluntary or forced by government.

While we're on this topic, would somebody explain what Reagan meant when he
said that if the Medicare program were passed, freedom would be wiped out
within a decade?

[Christopher Webber]

On 19/05/2013 14:57, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> There's no free lunch. Everything has to be paid for, in one way or
> another.
>
> "Society" can decide that old-age care is the humane thing to do. The
> costs could be covered by an insurance program, voluntary or forced by
> government.

This is well put. There's absolutely no free lunch. In the case of the
UK legislation (which is being passed by a government well to the right
of centre, by the way) the people funding it are the beneficiaries
themselves, who've been paying the taxation that we call National
Insurance all their (our) working lives.

[O]

In article <avrdeb...@mid.individual.net>, Christopher Webber

Why is it an error? Why do you think grandkids of someone who struck
it rich should be able to live a life of luxury on a government
supported subsidy without having to lift a finger? Because life is
unfair? Isn't this one of the things that makes life unfair?

-Owen

[O]

In article <avs2ih...@mid.individual.net>, Christopher Webber

Then shouldn't intellectual property rights be so capped, and/or means
tested?

-Owen

[O]

In article <avrda0...@mid.individual.net>, Christopher Webber

Of course it does, old people vote.

But if people don't pay for their nursing homes, then society does.
And if society doesn't meet its obligations, then nursing home quality
of care crumbles to dust.

-Owen

[Christopher Webber]

On 19/05/2013 15:56, O wrote:
> Then shouldn't intellectual property rights be so capped, and/or means
> tested?

They are capped - to seventy years after death.

"Means testing" is only appropriate to funds which come from central
government, directly through taxation in one form or another. The idea
is in any case meaningless when it comes to intellectual property
rights, which cannot be bean-counted in the way you bean-count real estate.

That does not apply to royalties, which are based on the number of
performances. I expect you've been grateful for the work done by the
many Trusts which fund music-making, publication and recording through
royalties? The two Vaughan Williams Trusts would be two splendid
examples of that.

Well done Sullivan. Well done Strauss.

[Christopher Webber]

On 19/05/2013 15:58, O wrote:
> But if people don't pay for their nursing homes, then society does.
> And if society doesn't meet its obligations, then nursing home quality
> of care crumbles to dust.

Society IS (largely) those "old people". They are not a separate
institution. We pay for our own care, but in a more co-operative way. It
is a different way of doing things, and makes sure there is a "safety
net" for the people at the bottom of the pile.

I would also say that an (inevitably) imperfect system is better than
none of all. Here in the UK the great majority of nursing homes are
"private", not state run except for special needs. There's no sign that
the quality of care is "crumbling to dust": and the current legislation
aims to make sure that quality is maintained.

[Norman Schwartz]

O wrote:
> In article <avqbog...@mid.individual.net>, Christopher Webber
> <zarz...@zarzuela.invalid.net> wrote:
>
>> On 18/05/2013 20:32, Dana John Hill wrote:
>>> The aspect of copyright interpretation in the USA that I find
>>> unnaturally contradictory is the protection of copyright for so long
>>> after the creator's death. I by no means wish to take food from the
>>> mouths of the widows and orphans of artists, but strict enforcement
>>> of copyright protections certainly isn't encouraging, say, Samuel
>>> Barber, to write any more music.
>>
>> Composers such as Sullivan in England, and Strauss in Germany, fought
>> heroically to establish copyright protection. Remember, that by not
>> wanting to pay royalties to dead composers when their works are
>> performed, one effectively *is* taking food from the mouths of his
>> widows, orphans, and grandchildren.
>
> I draw the line at grandchildren. There's no reason why one should
> depend on their grandparents for their life support. Go out and earn
> your own way. There's no need for society to protect the earnings of
> Walt Disney's grandchildren.

Perhaps Grandpa should pay the way for his grandchildren until the reach the
age of 21, or some other such number, or until they ca be expected to make
their own way. Additionally didn't he enjoy showering gifts on his grand
kids during holidays and their birthdays? You want to deny him that
pleasure, possibly giving at least some of it away to grown-ups who choose
*not* to make their own way? The more I think about it WD's estate should
remain within his family.

>>
>> A composer's music is his Real Estate. Why cheat his nearest and
>> dearest out of their inheritance?
>
> Nursing homes often cause people to lose their real estate. Are they
> being cheated?
>

No, nursing homes offer life support until the end of the line, and in many
cases after exhausting patients' estates. My 'estate' could easily be
exhausted and I wouldn't want to be thrown out into the street.

> -Owen

[Norman Schwartz]

Don't nursing homes 'gamble' as to what gives way first, the client or their
estate? If an estate outlives the patient isn't often used to provide care
for other indigent elders?

[td]

This "availability" is neither here nor there. You can't justify one
act of piracy by citing another.

 Yet Ebay and Amazon have continually
> registered sales for used sets and certain individual volumes for
> significant premiums throughout this time frame.

You have some way of "registering sales" for Amazon? Or is this just a
guess?

 The cheapest current
> used offering for Richter III  (Vol. 84) on Amazon Marketplace is $65.
> This is not an isolated off-the-market offer, either.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_13?url=search-alias%3Dpopular&field-keywords=great+pianists+of+the+20th+century&sprefix=Great+pianist%2Caps%2C288

This will allow you to compare your statement with reality. One hopes
that you get in contact with said reality real soon.

According to The
> Law of One Price, this can only be the case if the goods are
> qualitatively different, the markets are separate and distinct, or both.
>    This serves as supporting data for the points I set forth above.

It does no such thing, as you haven't "proved" anything regarding the
sales of these items.

Did you ever get through Logic 101?

TD

[td]

On May 18, 10:39 pm, "John Wiser" <jico...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> "O" <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:

Agreed.

The very notion that all the hospitals in the USA are privately owned
and operated in order to engender significant profits for their share-
holders is simply gross.

> You're a moral blank, Hartnett,
> so you can't comprehend this.

I couldn't possibly make such a statement. I do know that the poster
has a predilection for turning everything into a form of humour. If
and when he comes down with inoperable cancer we shall check his
humour level again.

TD

[td]

On May 19, 7:51 am, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> O wrote:
> > In article <YXWlt.6550$9X5.3...@newsfe31.iad>, John Wiser

> > <jico...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> >> "O" <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:

Put another way:

There's something wrong with old people being impoverished in order to
purchase nursing-home care in their final years on this earth?

 If society "owes" free nursing home care to old
> people, all they have to do is convert all their wealth into real estate and
> free-ride on society.

This is illogical. It is the real estate which they are forced to sell
off in order to pay for their nursing home care. Let's hope it doesn't
run out before they die. Or, they may end up in the street.

> (written by an old person).

Not a very thinking or feeling one, however.

TD

[Jay Kauffman]

Exactly - this old fool complains about piracy then sends everyone the site where they can actually download the albums. He's a bigger idiot than I thought he was. Wagner fan

[td]

No. The "old fool", unlike the resident opera queen, is interested in informing a forum on recorded music precisely how unscrupulous twits are misusing recordings.

"Everyone" obviously includes said loathsome opera queen. The little guttersnipe then went and downloaded the complete Karajan editions on EMI and DG while claiming hypocritically that he is above such dirty violations of the law. One has a sense that this is not the first law she has violated in her lifetime.

TD

[Frank Berger]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Frank Berger" wrote in message
> news:l-edneHKwI8rIQXM...@supernews.com...
>
>> There's something wrong with old people using their accumulated
>> wealth to "buy" nursing-home care? If society "owes" free nursing
>> home care to old people, all they have to do is convert all their
>> wealth into real estate and free-ride on society.
>> (written by an old person)
>
> You are deliberately mis-defining the situation.
>

If I "mis-defined the situation" you have no way of knowing if I did it on
purpuse. Such accusations stops dialogue in its tracks.

[O]

In article <avs8a4...@mid.individual.net>, Christopher Webber

<zarz...@zarzuela.invalid.net> wrote:

> On 19/05/2013 15:56, O wrote:
> > Then shouldn't intellectual property rights be so capped, and/or means
> > tested?
>
> They are capped - to seventy years after death.

Well, we have a little problem with that over on this side of the pond.
I have no problem with 70 years, but some Mickey Mouse organization
does.

>
> "Means testing" is only appropriate to funds which come from central
> government, directly through taxation in one form or another. The idea
> is in any case meaningless when it comes to intellectual property
> rights, which cannot be bean-counted in the way you bean-count real estate.

Lots of Means testing is done on non-direct funds. In the US several
exemptions are means tested and phased out after a certain income
level. Granting of copyrights is a definite benefit granted by the
government, and has distinct, but variable monetary value (but then so
do stocks and bonds).

-Owen

[O]

In article <avs8kd...@mid.individual.net>, Christopher Webber

In the US we have a great tradition of the government ordering things
to be done, and then neglecting to appropriate the money to do so.

-Owen

[O]

In article <5198eddf$0$25612$607e...@cv.net>, Norman Schwartz

Grandpa can pay whatever he wants - he's the copyright holder in this
scenario. My position is that grandkids shouldn't be able to cash in
on IP rights after Grandpa is gone.

-Owen

[John Wiser]

"Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dZCdnRjNy8NJ1QTM...@supernews.com...

> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> "Frank Berger" wrote in message
>> news:l-edneHKwI8rIQXM...@supernews.com...
>>
>>> There's something wrong with old people using their accumulated
>>> wealth to "buy" nursing-home care? If society "owes" free nursing
>>> home care to old people, all they have to do is convert all their
>>> wealth into real estate and free-ride on society.
>>> (written by an old person)
>>
>> You are deliberately mis-defining the situation.
>>
>
> If I "mis-defined the situation" you have no way of knowing if I did it on purpuse. Such
> accusations stops dialogue in its tracks.
>

There is a way of knowing, Frank.
It's called "pattern recognition."
I don't imagine you'd be very good at it.
Dialogue is not your thing either, and
that has also been noticed.

jdw

[maready]

>
>
> <http://www.ebook3000.com/muisc/Democracy-of-Sound--Music-Piracy-and-the-Remaking-of-American-Copyright-in-the-Twentieth-Centur_190155.html>
>
> or
>
> http://musicpiracy.notlong.com
>
>
>
> EM

Here's another very solid, well-researched and sane book that puts things in perspective. Despite the title, the issues discussed are relevant to all genres of music and the focus is historical (as the subtitle might suggest) And a very persuasive discussion of some of topics involved i.e. the misuses of the word "piracy", the lack of evidence for the music industry's assertion of an equivalency between illegal downloading and lost CD sales, etc. :

http://www.amazon.com/Pop-Song-Piracy-Disobedient-Distribution/dp/0226431835/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1369005409&sr=1-1&keywords=pop+music+piracy

[Frank Berger]

I don't know how you got out of my very small killfile, but back you go.

[John Wiser]

"Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:A5adnazIn7Bx-QTM...@supernews.com...

In or out, I will happily
point out your shortcomings.
Depend on it.

jdw

[Frankly My Dear]

On Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:01:42 AM UTC-5, td wrote:
> http://classicalmuzic.net/full-philips-records-great-pianists-of-the-20th-century-200-cds-eacapecuelogbooklet-easyly-to-download-enjoy

>
>
>
> And if you look further you will find most, if not all, of the recent
>
> boxed sets available on this glossy site.
>
>
>
> Copyright? What's that?
>
>
>
> TD

Isn't this set kind of a fossil? Some of the older items I've heard must have been transferred with better sounding results by now.
With films not yet in theatrical release available for download, for example, how does the posting of this set for the umpteenth time on some "pirate blog" amount to an upping (?) of the piracy game?
Frankly

[td]

On May 22, 12:51 am, Frankly My Dear <beelzabubb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:01:42 AM UTC-5, td wrote:

> >http://classicalmuzic.net/full-philips-records-great-pianists-of-the-...

>
> > And if you look further you will find most, if not all, of the recent
>
> > boxed sets available on this glossy site.
>
> > Copyright? What's that?
>
> > TD
>
> Isn't this set kind of a fossil?

Of course.

Just like you and me and everyone else contributing to this forum. All
fossils.

That said......

Some of the older items I've heard must have been transferred with
better sounding results by now.

Perhaps. But perhaps not.

TD

[Dana John Hill]

On 5/22/2013 5:51 AM, td wrote:
> On May 22, 12:51 am, Frankly My Dear <beelzabubb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:01:42 AM UTC-5, td wrote:
>>> http://classicalmuzic.net/full-philips-records-great-pianists-of-the-...
>>
>>> And if you look further you will find most, if not all, of the recent
>>
>>> boxed sets available on this glossy site.
>>
>>> Copyright? What's that?
>>
>>> TD
>>
>> Isn't this set kind of a fossil?
>
> Of course.
>
> Just like you and me and everyone else contributing to this forum. All
> fossils.
>

I don't know. I'm not a kid any more, but I'd like to think I've got a
good ways to go. That said, I have been called "old-at-heart".

Dana John Hill
Gainesville, Florida

[Frankly My Dear]

So you choose to comment drearily, but cannot explain how this ups the piracy game. What, then, was the point of your post?
Anyway, it was good of you to pass on the link. Just in case anybody out there still wanted any of that. Way to aid and abet the "pirates."
Frankly

[td]

I posted this link to illustrate just how far the pirates are prepared to go, the effrontery they are capable of, the shamelessness. I was properly shocked by what I saw. If others remain blasé, it is either that they support such illegal activity, admire the blatancy of it, or, want to take advantage of the link. I should hope that few will be among the latter group.

TD

[Frankly My Dear]

On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:13:50 PM UTC-5, td wrote:
> I posted this link to illustrate just how far the pirates are prepared to go, the effrontery they are capable of, the shamelessness. I was properly shocked by what I saw. If others remain blasé, it is either that they support such illegal activity, admire the blatancy of it, or, want to take advantage of the link. I should hope that few will be among the latter group.
>
>
>
> TD

Effrontery? Shamelessness?
That's just bloated self-aggrandizing silliness. Welcome to 1999, I guess. You're not going to like the next 15 years if shameless effrontery bothers you. Batten down the hatches.
Frankly

[Matthew B. Tepper]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> appears to have caused
the following letters to be typed in news:kn8671$mqt$1...@dont-email.me:

> "Easyly to download"?
>
> I am not the only person to suggest that when a publisher stops publishing
> a piece of intellectual property, it implicitly abandons its copyright.
>
> The Constitution states that the purpose of patents and copyrights is to
> encourage people to create intellectual property and make it available.
> However, few people interpret that as strictly as I would like to see it
> interpreted.

I would dearly love to see this made law.

I wonder whether the OP realizes that his post, complete with link, might
lead to MORE users being aware of the site in question, and therefore
potentially leading to MORE downloads of this copyright material?

--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.

[wagnerfan]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 01:56:11 -0500, "Matthew B. Tepper"
<oy兀earthlink.net> wrote:

>"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> appears to have caused
>the following letters to be typed in news:kn8671$mqt$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> "Easyly to download"?
>>
>> I am not the only person to suggest that when a publisher stops publishing
>> a piece of intellectual property, it implicitly abandons its copyright.
>>
>> The Constitution states that the purpose of patents and copyrights is to
>> encourage people to create intellectual property and make it available.
>> However, few people interpret that as strictly as I would like to see it
>> interpreted.
>
>I would dearly love to see this made law.
>
>I wonder whether the OP realizes that his post, complete with link, might
>lead to MORE users being aware of the site in question, and therefore
>potentially leading to MORE downloads of this copyright material?

Yes ironic wasn't it???? Wagner fan