Nationwide Boycott Against RIAA begins Halloween Night!
Halloween Raver
DON'T JUST GROOVE - MOVE!!
Check out the Animated Halloween Rave Video By Clicking Here:
http://newjersey.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/halloween_rave.wmv
STARTING ON HALLOWEEN NIGHT, MUSIC LOVERS AROUND THE WORLD WILL TAKE
A VOW NOT TO BUY MUSIC FROM ANY RECORD LABEL OR ANY MUSIC ARTIST WHO
SUPPORTS SUING PEOPLE WHO SHARE MUSIC OVER THE INTERNET. ALSO, EVERY
RECORD LABEL MUST SIGN THE MUSIC ARTIST'S BILL OF RIGHTS, OR WE WON'T
BUY MUSIC FROM THAT RECORD LABEL! WATCH THE VIDEO (4.26min), SHARE IT
WITH YOUR FRIENDS AND POST IT ON YOUR WEBSITE.
******
The bullies in the record industry are attacking music lovers all
over the world by suing them for sharing music over the internet!
While the music industry moguls get rich, the average music artist
goes broke. The music industry steals all of the money, controls
what music is available, and tries to control the artist. The music
industry is a big bully and it is time to stand up to them!
On Friday night, October 31st Halloween night, people all across
the nation will be throwing Halloween Raves and Parties. We are
organizing and parties in our own cities, towns, and neighborhoods
to stand up to the bullies in the music industry!
Organize a rave or party in your own city and play only the music you
obtained by file sharing on the internet!! Starting on Halloween night,
music lovers around the world will take a vow to not buy music from any
record label or any music artist who supports suing people who share
music over he internet. Music lovers will also stop buying music from
record labels who rip off their artists. Every record label must sign
the Music Artist's Bill of Rights! If a record label will not sign the
Music Artist's Bill of Rights, we won't buy music from that record label!
JOIN THE NATIONWIDE HALLOWEEN RAVE AGAINST THE BULLIES!
GET YOUR GROUP OR ORGANIZATION TO ORGANIZE A HALLOWEEN
RAVE OR PARTY AGAINST THE BULLIES IN YOUR OWN CITY.
ALREADY THROWING OR ATTENDING A RAVE OR PARTY ON HALLOWEEN? TAKE
A STAND AGAINST THE BULLIES IN THE RECORD INDUSTRY THAT NIGHT!!!
View the Animated Video, Share it and Post it on your Website:
http://newjersey.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/halloween_rave.wmv
Download the poster from Here:
http://chicago.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=31701&group=webcast
For more information about the Halloween Rave Against the Bullies
and a copy of the Music Artist's Bill of Rights e-mail:
hallowe...@hotmail.com.
For more information about Whose Nieuws Crue,
email:
whose_ni...@hotmail.com
punker420guy
music? support your local scene. diy bitch
On 11 Oct 2003 11:36:27 -0700, hallowe...@hotmail.com (Halloween
DishRoom1
>Join THE HALLOWEEN RAVE AGAINST THE BULLIES: In the Record Industry!!
>
>DON'T JUST GROOVE - MOVE!!
>
>STARTING ON HALLOWEEN NIGHT, MUSIC LOVERS AROUND THE WORLD WILL TAKE
>A VOW NOT TO BUY MUSIC FROM ANY RECORD LABEL OR ANY MUSIC ARTIST WHO
>SUPPORTS SUING PEOPLE WHO SHARE MUSIC OVER THE INTERNET. ALSO, EVERY
>RECORD LABEL MUST SIGN THE MUSIC ARTIST'S BILL OF RIGHTS, OR WE WON'T
>BUY MUSIC FROM THAT RECORD LABEL! WATCH THE VIDEO (4.26min), SHARE IT
>WITH YOUR FRIENDS AND POST IT ON YOUR WEBSITE.
No thanks. I like legit music from the brick and mortar houses better.
Shit, first a couple of posts for pirated furry comics/art, and now for pirated
music. When would these kids learn stealing artists' work never wins?
John Shughart
Reach The Sky
"punker420guy" <noe...@noemail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:21kgovslc3okep5ag...@4ax.com...
> god this is dumb. what the fuck are u listening to riaa supported
> music? support your local scene. diy bitch
>
queers.
Stormfront T. Dragon
> Join THE HALLOWEEN RAVE AGAINST THE BULLIES: In the Record Industry!!
>
> DON'T JUST GROOVE - MOVE!!
>
> Check out the Animated Halloween Rave Video By Clicking Here:
> http://newjersey.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/halloween_rave.wmv
>
> STARTING ON HALLOWEEN NIGHT, MUSIC LOVERS AROUND THE WORLD WILL TAKE
> A VOW NOT TO BUY MUSIC FROM ANY RECORD LABEL OR ANY MUSIC ARTIST WHO
> SUPPORTS SUING PEOPLE WHO SHARE MUSIC OVER THE INTERNET. ALSO, EVERY
> RECORD LABEL MUST SIGN THE MUSIC ARTIST'S BILL OF RIGHTS, OR WE WON'T
> BUY MUSIC FROM THAT RECORD LABEL! WATCH THE VIDEO (4.26min), SHARE IT
> WITH YOUR FRIENDS AND POST IT ON YOUR WEBSITE.
So to protest the fact the RIAA won't let you get away with downloading music
you didn't buy, you're going to continue not buying it?
--
/\ \\ /\ ____________________________________________
/| \ (''-.\ _| Stormfront Thundra Dragon |_
/ | \//""| \ >_\""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""/_<
/ | / | | \
/ |/"(_)) | \ She waits for me at night, she waits for me in silence
"""\|\\(_))\/"""" She gives me all her tenderness and takes away my pain
/W / W And so far she hasn't run, though I swear she's had
/ \ \\ moments
__/ // // She still believes in miracles while others cry in vain
"---" "WWW --- Billy Joel, "All About Soul"
Chris Sobieniak
wrote:
>Halloween Raver said ---
Tripe about having parties to diss the RIAA for cheating it's artist and
what-not.
>No thanks. I like legit music from the brick and
>mortar houses better.
I just don't listen to anything current anymore.
>Shit, first a couple of posts for pirated furry
>comics/art, and now for pirated music. When would
>these kids learn stealing artists' work never wins?
>John Shughart
IMO, these kids are just '"Coo Coo for Coco Puffs" stupid!
From the Master of Car-too-nal Knowledge...
Christopher M. Sobieniak
--"Fightin' the Frizzies since 1978"--
Chris Sobieniak
gernic2001__________fuckspam!@videotron.ca (Reach The Sky) wrote:
>"punker420guy" <noe...@noemail.com> a écrit
>dans le message de
>>riaa supported music? support your local scene.
>>diy bitch
> I would say support indepedent labels. Most
>bands in my scene suck. Emo queers.
Yeah, the "Toledo Sound" hasn't really developed at all within the past
50 years or so, most local music scenes have seen their heyday and
triumphs at oine point or another (Detroit having theirs in the '60s),
but nowadays it's just not done!
PHiL eiGHTY
> god this is dumb. what the fuck are u listening to riaa supported
> music? support your local scene. diy bitch
>
ouch.
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
The 12 Oct 2003 01:57:24 GMT, DishRoom1 <dish...@aol.com> wrote:
> No thanks. I like legit music from the brick and mortar houses
> better. Shit, first a couple of posts for pirated furry comics/art,
> and now for pirated music. When would these kids learn stealing
> artists' work never wins?
Riiight. Stealing from RIAA somehow steals from the artist...$18 for
a CD, the band gets a nickel to split among them. Considering that
all the cover art, mastering and manufacturing of the CD comes out to
$5, who do you think is getting the other $12.95 per disc? It's not
the artist, it's RIAA.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/iPaFUzgNqloQMwcRAgRSAKDkaK6Ny3GFZGmiUNCai0IwDYwrhACgn2ED
BE2UGBXeKcBDHXfEgWWzAo4=
=G4ZT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>> No thanks. I like legit music from the brick and mortar houses
>> better. Shit, first a couple of posts for pirated furry comics/art,
>> and now for pirated music. When would these kids learn stealing
>> artists' work never wins?
>
>Riiight. Stealing from RIAA somehow steals from the artist...$18 for
>a CD, the band gets a nickel to split among them. Considering that
>all the cover art, mastering and manufacturing of the CD comes out to
>$5, who do you think is getting the other $12.95 per disc? It's not
>the artist, it's RIAA.
>
Still, Paul, that's never an escuse to steal music without the comapny's or
artist's knowledge. You can't right someone else's wrong by doing another wrong
yourself. Ever though that by downloading music you're hurting the artists as
well, not helping them, because the artists aren't getting any money from the
downloading.
Besides, when I buy a CD, I think about the music I'm getting, not about who's
getting my money.
John Shughart
BR
> Riiight. Stealing from RIAA somehow steals from the artist...$18 for a
> CD, the band gets a nickel to split among them. Considering that all
> the cover art, mastering and manufacturing of the CD comes out to $5,
> who do you think is getting the other $12.95 per disc? It's not the
> artist, it's RIAA.
We already had this discussion (google for the copyright thread). Two
crooks don't make an angel.
--
-- James Fenimore Cooper
The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes,
knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.
BR
Actually if pirates were really for artist rights? Then they would write a
check out to the artist everytime they downloaded something.
Plastic Soul
Halloween Raver wrote:
> Join THE HALLOWEEN RAVE AGAINST THE BULLIES: In the Record Industry!!
>
> STARTING ON HALLOWEEN NIGHT, MUSIC LOVERS AROUND THE WORLD WILL TAKE
> A VOW NOT TO BUY MUSIC FROM ANY RECORD LABEL OR ANY MUSIC ARTIST WHO
> SUPPORTS SUING PEOPLE WHO SHARE MUSIC OVER THE INTERNET. ALSO, EVERY
> RECORD LABEL MUST SIGN THE MUSIC ARTIST'S BILL OF RIGHTS, OR WE WON'T
> BUY MUSIC FROM THAT RECORD LABEL! WATCH THE VIDEO (4.26min), SHARE IT
> WITH YOUR FRIENDS AND POST IT ON YOUR WEBSITE.
yeah, but we can still buy the new britney spears record, right? please?
Incidently, Christina Aguilera seems to be the new postergirl for
Adbuster Magazine's "Buy Nothing Day", Nov 28.
http://adbusters.org/campaigns/bnd/
...must be a publicity stunt =)
-Maitland
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
The 12 Oct 2003 07:46:31 GMT, DishRoom1 <dish...@aol.com> wrote:
> Still, Paul, that's never an escuse to steal music without the
> comapny's or artist's knowledge. You can't right someone else's
> wrong by doing another wrong yourself.
With the notable exception of Metallica, there's just not many artists
speaking out against it. Many artists are in favor of it. Record
sales increased by over a billion dollars the year Napster was all
over the news: Who knew listening to an album before you buy it would
sell the album?
> Ever though that by downloading music you're hurting the artists as
> well, not helping them, because the artists aren't getting any money from the
> downloading.
No, you're hurting RIAA. Want money to go to the artist? Go to the
concerts, buy the T-shirts. That money actually *does* make it to the
artists instead of litigious assholes who do none of the work but reap
most of the reward.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/iUGqUzgNqloQMwcRAlErAKCPDnDUa/XjKcZkiGl8gbmKsqQWwQCfRK71
V6KdxdPi3LqqJKbRXjVUlGw=
=QTz3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
A Non e-Moose
be a lawyer. The RIAA is not needed anymore. Eventually they will be stamped
out. You piss the public off....you'll be living in a cardboard box.
iBuck
>a CD, the band gets a nickel to split among them. Considering that
>all the cover art, mastering and manufacturing of the CD comes out to
>$5, who do you think is getting the other $12.95 per disc? It's not
>the artist, it's RIAA.
You -really- think that a master and that cover art comes out to $5 per disk?
the -copies- that you get might, bu I seriously doubt that $5 covers all
that.. $5 doesn't even get you a pencil sketch at a Furcon.
You also forgot the retailer and the studio in there. Last I looked, I wasn't
buying from the RIAA store.
So how much does the artist get from that unauthorized download? (And what
about those bands who haven paid off their fat RIAA funded advances yet,
you're -really- helping them get free, by DLing their music.. )
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
iBuck
>artists instead of litigious assholes who do none of the work but reap
>most of the reward.
Like the printers, and the licencees and the concert promoters and concert
venues, and Ticketmaster...
iBuck
I can hurt the RIAA, by just not buying their stuff, unauthorized downloading
doesn't add any additional injury.
Brian O'connell
news:20031012110004...@mb-m13.aol.com...
> >No, you're hurting RIAA.
>
> I can hurt the RIAA, by just not buying their stuff, unauthorized
downloading
> doesn't add any additional injury.
The problem is, the RIAA uses file sharing as an all encompassing excuse.
Since their sales are dropping like a rock, they're blaming file sharing, as
opposed to the fact that they're suing little old ladies (who haven't even
downloaded mp3s, apparently they've never heard of dynamic DNS) and whatnot,
or just the simple fact that they haven't had an original idea for music
releases in over a decade.
In other words, the way the RIAA is spinning all their losses, we're damnned
if we do and damnned if we don't.
Remember 5-8 years ago, when they were blaming used CD sales for their
losses, and tried having used CD sales declared illegal? And remember 10
years ago or so, when they tried blaming DAT owners for dropping sales? How
about the mid 80s when they were blaming those diabolical tapers?
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>> Still, Paul, that's never an escuse to steal music without the
>> comapny's or artist's knowledge. You can't right someone else's
>> wrong by doing another wrong yourself.
>
>With the notable exception of Metallica, there's just not many artists
>speaking out against it. Many artists are in favor of it.
Yeah, sure, let's suppose that many artists support a system where they never
ever see a red cent compared to the alledged nickel they get from the RIAA.
("Hey, kids, support my greedy analness against RIAA coprprates by filesharing!
Of course when you fileshare I loose even less money than with the ligit music
business and you kids aren't letting me pay my bills, taxes, food, and house.
But who cares since we're all together against the the greedier RIAA, right?")
Are these musicians becoming stupider or something. Maybe it has to do with all
these pot they smoke over the years.
Record
>sales increased by over a billion dollars the year Napster was all
>over the news: Who knew listening to an album before you buy it would
>sell the album?
Downloading increases ligit music sales? Yeah, right, and I suppose that
downloading furry art increases sales of furry art. (sarcasm)
Besides, I don't understand. First you support filesharing to hurt the greedy
legal music sales, and now you say it also supports the music sales?
>
>> Ever though that by downloading music you're hurting the artists as
>> well, not helping them, because the artists aren't getting any money from
>the
>> downloading.
>
>No, you're hurting RIAA. Want money to go to the artist? Go to the
>concerts, buy the T-shirts. That money actually *does* make it to the
>artists instead of litigious assholes who do none of the work but reap
>most of the reward.
>
Sadly, I've never been to a concert and bought a T-shirt in all my life so far,
so Phhhfffff :-p
Besides, what makes you so sure that all the money from the concerts and shirts
goes ALL the way to the artists and bands? What about the people who organize
the concerts, ticket sellers and box office, the specail stage FX team, the
folks who used their talnets to make the T-shirts?
John Shughart
DishRoom1
iBuck wrote --
Folks, another mindless rant from Brian O'Connell.
John Shughart
Stormfront T. Dragon
> So you support corporations and their quest to rip people off more?
How are they ripping you off? They're offering you a certain product at a
certain price. If you like the price, you can buy it. If you don't like the
price you're free not to. Either way there's nothing being hidden from you
around the nature of the transaction.
And if you do decide to boycott them, then at least have the courage to do it
for real. That means not downloading the music instead during your little
boycott. People who only stand for their "principles" when there's no personal
consequences associated with doing so are cowards. But then, this really isn't
about principle is it. All that shit about "artist rights" and "corporate
exploitation" is really just a rationalization for you to get free stuff.
Of course, what should I expect from someone someone so cowardly they have to
spoof their sender name and e-mail. Easy to be the big man when you can hide
behind anonymity, eh?
> Eventually they will be stamped
> out. You piss the public off....you'll be living in a cardboard box.
Wow, great mentality. We're the mob, it we want your property, we're just going
to take it. If you resist we'll lynch you.
Robbery doesn't become any less vile just because there's a bunch of thieves
involved instead of just one.
Buckaroo Banzai
"Stormfront T. Dragon" <storm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3F89A6CE...@worldnet.att.net...
When you purchase music from a record label, you're purchasing the CD, the
jewel case, the art on the cover & the liner notes. What exactly are you
stealing when you download music? One's and zero's? If it's intellectual
property that you're stealing then that means you can be sued anytime you
sing one of your favorite artist's songs. The music industry has gouged the
public for far too long and now they are getting their comeuppance.
Artist's don't sell their music, they sell the medium that carries their
music, plain and simple.
Brian O'connell
news:20031012142609...@mb-m17.aol.com...
> Brain O'Connell wrote --
> >losses, and tried having used CD sales declared illegal? And remember 10
> >years ago or so, when they tried blaming DAT owners for dropping sales?
How
> >about the mid 80s when they were blaming those diabolical tapers?
>
> Folks, another mindless rant from Brian O'Connell.
Folks, another mindless rebuttle from John Shughart, who obviously has been
living in a cave for the last two months, if not the last 20 years.
Do you know, for example, why CD-Rs and audio tape cassettes are as
expensive as they are? Because the RIAA pushed for a tariff on recording
media, claiming that otherwise, it would cut into their profits. Anyone can
google the info.
Also, the RIAA DID supoena a little old lady:
http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5081469.html , along with taking a single
mom and her daughter for a $2000 ride, due to their ignorance of the law.
And finally, YES, the RIAA tried shutting down used CD sales, DAT sales, and
taping albums/radio. There's a nice concise report here about all of the
above:
http://www.townonline.com/chelmsford/news/opinion/ci_colcischinellap07232003.htm
A Non e-Moose
As for you Stormfront....go have fun riding your dinosaur. Everything I said
previously was a condensed rebuke of a much bigger picture. You can say all
you wish..you make it sound like, "Well...the good folk at labels are only
trying to sell their product..and all you should be ashamed picking on
someone company like you do..stealing from them." Good god..who you trying
to kid? Muisc has been passed around for years...it never hurt sales and its
not responsible for hurting sales now. MP3's are perfect quality any ways.
The RIAA is just scared that they may lose control of their little
monoploy...and not be able to price fix anymore.
As fas as my identity goes..I am just doing the same as anyone else on
usenet. If you wanted my identity that bad..I'm sure you could find it..by
why bother?..I'm just another one of the millions of people out there who
feel this way.
The RIAA rips off consumers and the artists. They've over charged us for
years for CD's..they are getting too powerful for their own good....look at
the way they can buy politicians now. That kind of power has no place in
whats supposed to be a free nation and it has to be dismantled.
Look at what happens to new bands that sign on with the labels. They pretty
well go bankrupt during their first year...while the labels make a mint.
They're no longer looking for new bands..they are looking for the next new
great song. They sign a band on..get what they can from them..then discard
them. The artist gets nothing from their labor..they actually have to sell
other things on the side just to make any money. When the labels can't find
a good song...they manufacture acts..thats why we now have hollywood herb
boy bands, lip syncing Brittany Spears and her clones....and geeks like
Justin Timberlake!! LOL...Yup theres the musical genius of the 2000's. The
kids of this generation won't have any musical hereo's to look back on like
we did.
We are moving into a time where the labels aren't needed anyways. With the
internet offering such grand potential.... bands in the future will do
everything they need to promote themselves....by themselves. They don't even
need the expensive budget for recording now. I am one of musicians actually.
I am in the process of recording my own CD. I plan to let be pased around
the internet a freely as anything. I will make money doing concerts and
selling what CD's I can. What money I make..at least will be mine. The RIAA
can keep their music..they can produce it all they wish..but bands out there
now who want to be heard are going to use the internet to do it....and that
will be the wave of the near future. People may just lose interest in the
RIAA's product any way.
All you are worried about son....is your own bank account. Don't try to
insult our intelligence. I plan to boycott for real. I will not be buying
any CD's in the near future..if at all.
DishRoom1
Stormfront T. Dragon wrote --
Ah, your mother sells cheap, poorly-made bootleg VHS of movies still in
theaters.
John Shughart
Paul R. Bennett
You did a beautiful job of summing it up in so few words. Regards this as a hats
off, and a hearty "Well Done!"
Paul
BR
> The problem is, the RIAA uses file sharing as an all encompassing
> excuse. Since their sales are dropping like a rock, they're blaming file
> sharing, as opposed to the fact that they're suing little old ladies
> (who haven't even downloaded mp3s, apparently they've never heard of
> dynamic DNS) and whatnot, or just the simple fact that they haven't had
> an original idea for music releases in over a decade.
>
>
And people who are doing illegal filesharing is helping fan the flames, by
legitamizing their "excuse".
> In other words, the way the RIAA is spinning all their losses, we're
> damnned if we do and damnned if we don't.
>
>
If all the people doing illegal filesharing, as well as the dissatisfied
had done what they're suppose to, which is refusing to buy the companies
product, and backing it up with letters and calls? Then the present
situation wouldn't have been a damned if you do, damned if you don't.
> Remember 5-8 years ago, when they were blaming used CD sales for their
> losses, and tried having used CD sales declared illegal? And remember 10
> years ago or so, when they tried blaming DAT owners for dropping sales?
> How about the mid 80s when they were blaming those diabolical tapers?
And all the above makes copyright OK? So much for free will. The devil
made me do it.
punker420guy
wrote:
>.
go buy the latest cd from the "feederz" it has the mp3's on it
already for you.
BR
[Follow up set]
> When you purchase music from a record label, you're purchasing the CD,
> the jewel case, the art on the cover & the liner notes.
Purchase what?
> What exactly are you stealing when you download music? One's and
> zero's?
And if I steal your car, I'm stealing atoms, and empty space.
> The music industry has gouged the public for far too long and now they
> are getting their comeuppance.
Vigilante justice, yea that'll work.
> Artist's don't sell their music,
> they sell the medium that carries their music, plain and simple.
Has anyone listened to some good "medium" lately?
BR
>> Remember 5-8 years ago, when they were blaming used CD sales for their
>> losses, and tried having used CD sales declared illegal? And remember
>> 10 years ago or so, when they tried blaming DAT owners for dropping
>> sales? How about the mid 80s when they were blaming those diabolical
>> tapers?
>
> And all the above makes copyright OK? So much for free will. The devil
> made me do it.
"makes copyright [violation]"
iBuck
>if we do and damnned if we don't.
And the file "sharers" are spinning just as fast in the other direction,
coming up with BS excuses to justify their unauthorized distrubution networks,
when all they want is to have their cake and eat it too.
iBuck
>stealing when you download music?
You're not stealing anything.. you're doing something diffrent, youre
breaking the sociatel bargin that lets artist put thier wor out first and
-then- collect their pay for the effort. It's the same bargain that keeps
those artists from being -completly- exploited by the likes of the RIAA.
You don't like, that kind of deal, make a better one.. the model is out there
it's called comissions and patronage.
iBuck
>All you are worried about son....is your own bank account. Don't try to
>insult our intelligence. I plan to boycott for real. I will not be buying
>any CD's in the near future..if at all
Bullshit.. what people who don't buy the whole line are woried about is the
complete and utter lact of respect for the bargins that society strikes... Find
your own pargin if you like, but if your kind of attitude continues, you'll
be just as screwed over as the RIAA.
You don't like the RIAA, don't buy their shit, but in that case don't pretend
you're entitled to download their product -anyway-.
ZZZ-ZZZ
wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 19:34:05 +0000, Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
>
>[Follow up set]
>
>> When you purchase music from a record label, you're purchasing the CD,
>> the jewel case, the art on the cover & the liner notes.
>
>Purchase what?
>
>> What exactly are you stealing when you download music? One's and
>> zero's?
>
>And if I steal your car, I'm stealing atoms, and empty space.
>
One obvious difference, which many people still ignore, is that one of
the consequences of taking the car is that someone (the owner) is
deprived of something WHICH HE HAD. This is an essential part of what
"stealing" is, and is completely absent when you copy information
(music, movies, computer software, TV, etc...).
Notice that in the above, I'm talking about what is stealing and what
is not, AND AM SAYING NOTHING ABOUT RIGHT OR WRONG.
I am posting this with an anonymous handle as a form of protection
against the idiots who make up nasty stuff.
Stormfront T. Dragon
> Look at what happens to new bands that sign on with the labels. They pretty
> well go bankrupt during their first year...while the labels make a mint.
> They're no longer looking for new bands..they are looking for the next new
> great song. They sign a band on..get what they can from them..then discard
> them. The artist gets nothing from their labor..they actually have to sell
> other things on the side just to make any money. When the labels can't find
> a good song...they manufacture acts..thats why we now have hollywood herb
> boy bands, lip syncing Brittany Spears and her clones....and geeks like
> Justin Timberlake!! LOL...Yup theres the musical genius of the 2000's. The
> kids of this generation won't have any musical hereo's to look back on like
> we did.
No one forces the bands to sign with the labels, and in fact there's a lot of
smaller performers who don't. Those that do obviously feel there's some benefit
in doing so. Maybe you disagree. But so what? It's not your job to go around
trying to undermine other people's career just because they decided to do it
differently than you think they should. Likewise, you may not like many of the
current pop groups. Again, so what? Obviously a lot of people do like them.
It's not your job to go around telling people what music they're allowed to
like.
> We are moving into a time where the labels aren't needed anyways. With the
> internet offering such grand potential.... bands in the future will do
> everything they need to promote themselves....by themselves. They don't even
> need the expensive budget for recording now. I am one of musicians actually.
> I am in the process of recording my own CD. I plan to let be pased around
> the internet a freely as anything. I will make money doing concerts and
> selling what CD's I can. What money I make..at least will be mine. The RIAA
> can keep their music..they can produce it all they wish..but bands out there
> now who want to be heard are going to use the internet to do it....and that
> will be the wave of the near future. People may just lose interest in the
> RIAA's product any way.
Very few artist make a significant amount of money doing concerts. In fact,
most lose money doing concerts. They do it primarily as a form of advertising
to cell those evil CD's. And if you want to give those CD's away for free, then
good for you. But again, why does everyone else have to give them away just
because you give yours away?
I'm starting to wonder if your issues with the RIAA are largely a projection
thing, since you seem to have a serious problem with wanting everyone to do
everything the way you want. Listen to the same music you do, run their
businesses they way you think they should be run, perform music they way you
think they should. Just cause you're a wanna be little dictator doesn't mean
everyone else is.
> All you are worried about son....is your own bank account. Don't try to
> insult our intelligence. I plan to boycott for real. I will not be buying
> any CD's in the near future..if at all.
It doesn't sound like you're buying an now, so I don't think your purchases will
be missed. Of course, you've got an easy out since you can just steal it. I
wonder how gung ho you'd be if boycott meant no new music.
In the mean time, I plan to anti-boycott. I'm going to make sure to go out and
buy a whole bunch of CD's that night.
Silver Seams
news:20031012210959...@mb-m04.aol.com:
> You don't like the RIAA, don't buy their shit, but in that case
> don't pretend you're entitled to download their product -anyway-.
I may have missed something (certain of the folks in the thread are in my
killfile), but it sure looks like some posts, this included, are equating
"not buying RIAA products" with "downloading them instead."
That may or may not be a correct reading of the thread, but in case it is,
I'd like to point out that I've stopped buying RIAA products. I download
music off the Internet... direct from the artists, or from their non-RIAA
agents. When it's something I like, I pay for it. Pretty simple, and
everybody (except the RIAA) is happy, and no laws are violated.
Why am I avoiding the RIAA? Because they assume I'm a criminal. I want
to buy music where the seller isn't dead-set on removing *my* fair-use
rights in a useless attempt to stop someone *else* from violating their
copyright.
I rather like Ampcast, at the moment.
--
<URL: http://www.silverseams.com/ > Costuming, stuffed animals, etc.
<URL: http://www.furbid.ws/cgi-bin/auction.pl?justdisp&Silver_seams>
atomic_elvis
"Stormfront T. Dragon" <storm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3F8A06A5...@worldnet.att.net...
Rick Pikul
lncra...@aol.com.star says...
> >$18 for
> >a CD, the band gets a nickel to split among them. Considering that
> >all the cover art, mastering and manufacturing of the CD comes out to
> >$5, who do you think is getting the other $12.95 per disc? It's not
> >the artist, it's RIAA.
>
> You -really- think that a master and that cover art comes out to $5 per disk?
> the -copies- that you get might, bu I seriously doubt that $5 covers all
> that.. $5 doesn't even get you a pencil sketch at a Furcon.
>
> You also forgot the retailer and the studio in there. Last I looked, I wasn't
> buying from the RIAA store.
More than that, with music you often see bi-level distribution
with a 50-100% markup on each stage.
$5, with a 50% per stage markup and a single distributor level
results in a retail price of $11.25: That's the _bottom_ edge of the
price band, and the producer's profit is in that $5.
--
Phoenix
Richard Beck
of the day, to take something that was never meant to be obtained for free,
with out paying for it, is stealing despite how one tries to reason it. A
rose by anyother name smells as sweet; a pile of crap by anyother name
smells as nasty.
The success of the concert revenue would be determined by how successful the
band is in the first place. If they're not "COMPLETELY HOT", they won't
bring in very much in concert money. But with the mindset of these file
sharers, if that was the case, then they don't deserve anything back from
the folks that were interested enough to take a look at their music from the
get-go (IE record sales, royalties, etc.)
No record sales, then the record industry would collapse. No record
industry, then no money --at all-- for the band. Radio stations couldn't
play records that didn't exist, so royalties would also cease to exist. So
then bands are left with nothing they can have to get a foot up -- at least
a foot up -- into the public eye. Isn't that what these people are saying it
should all just be about in the first place? A foot up into the public eye?
So the whole idea of file sharing increases awareness of the bands doesn't
fly. The record industry does that. I find it kind of ironic how these
people who swap files do tend to like the bands that these major record
lables back but fail to grasp that with out the help of that record company,
these people would never have even heard of said bands. These bands would
still be playing county fairs and clubs (if they're --really-- good) if they
hadn't been given the exposure needed from these record companies. Kill the
record industry, then you kill a conduit to terriffic bands that you
otherwise would never have heard of.
Heck, I do classical music, and I shudder at the thought of recording any of
it. Classical music is not really the kind of thing you can just go 'on
tour' with. So, as a composer, as a person devoting their entire existance
to the genre, I should be SOL. That's what those song pirates are saying.
Even though I have bills to pay, etc. Could I have done an album or five?
Maybe. But what's the point? They'd just rip it off if it was any good.
Richard Beck
"A Non e-Moose" <ma...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:Oxjib.91446$PD3.4...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> Exactly Buckaroo
>
> As for you Stormfront....go have fun riding your dinosaur. Everything I
said
> previously was a condensed rebuke of a much bigger picture. You can say
all
> you wish..you make it sound like, "Well...the good folk at labels are only
> trying to sell their product..and all you should be ashamed picking on
> someone company like you do..stealing from them." Good god..who you trying
> to kid? Muisc has been passed around for years...it never hurt sales and
its
> not responsible for hurting sales now. MP3's are perfect quality any ways.
> The RIAA is just scared that they may lose control of their little
> monoploy...and not be able to price fix anymore.
>
> As fas as my identity goes..I am just doing the same as anyone else on
> usenet. If you wanted my identity that bad..I'm sure you could find it..by
> why bother?..I'm just another one of the millions of people out there who
> feel this way.
>
> The RIAA rips off consumers and the artists. They've over charged us for
> years for CD's..
Just because they're charging too much in your opinion dosen't give anyone
the right to steal it. I think a Rolls-Royce automobile costs too much
money. That doesn't mean I should be entitled to go out and simply take one
without paying for it because I think the price is ludicrous.
they are getting too powerful for their own good....look at
> the way they can buy politicians now. That kind of power has no place in
> whats supposed to be a free nation and it has to be dismantled.
>
> Look at what happens to new bands that sign on with the labels. They
pretty
> well go bankrupt during their first year...while the labels make a mint.
> They're no longer looking for new bands..they are looking for the next new
> great song. They sign a band on..get what they can from them..then discard
> them.
Has it occured to you that they are discarded because these bands all try to
sound the same? As far as the bands themselves, they don't even try to be
different. I can hear five different alternative groups and wouldn't be able
to distiguish between any of them. The bands they do keep are the ones that
actually have something different about them -- something that sets them
away from the bands just trying to copy one another. And they're very few
and far between. Yeah. It's a survivalist kind of thing. As a business you
take what will get you to the next day. Just like breathing. You take each
breath in hopes that that breath will get you to the next one. It's
survivalist because it's all a gamble. It's the record company's money
invested in it, on the line. Some bands albums sell better than others.
Naturally, you want to get rid of the bands that aren't selling that well.
For your own existance sake.
They shouldn't have been scrapped? Well, then why didn't you buy the album,
if you liked them so much. If they're concerts get them the most of their
revenue anyway, then what would it matter wether the record industry gives
them 'just a small percentage of the money'. They're giving them exposure,
just like how you argue internet sharing gives them exposure. And at least
with the record company doing it, they're get --something--. With that in
mind, I have to conclude that this is merely an excuse by file swappers to
get something for nothing.
As it is, I'm still trying to figure out where I stand in all of this.
The artist gets nothing from their labor..they actually have to sell
> other things on the side just to make any money.
Well, if these bands are so great, then why don't they just go on tour,
seeming that this is where all the big money is anyway?
When the labels can't find
> a good song...they manufacture acts..thats why we now have hollywood herb
> boy bands, lip syncing Brittany Spears and her clones....and geeks like
> Justin Timberlake!! LOL...Yup theres the musical genius of the 2000's. The
> kids of this generation won't have any musical hereo's to look back on
like
> we did.
>
I agree with you there.
> I will make money doing concerts and
> selling what CD's I can.
So now you condone the selling of CD's because we're talking about you, now.
Either making money off of CD sales is okay, or it's not. Jeez. At least be
consistent. x.x
What money I make..at least will be mine. The RIAA
> can keep their music..they can produce it all they wish..but bands out
there
> now who want to be heard are going to use the internet to do it....and
that
> will be the wave of the near future.
Well, then what does the RIAA have to do with any of this then? If the
future of music has nothing to do with the RIAA, then what's the whole point
of boycotting them? Bands simply not singing up with major record lables in
favor of releasing their stuff over the net would be the most effective form
of boycott. But they sign up because it gives them exposure that they
otherwise wouldn't have had. Internet exposure may be okay, but it is
nothing compared to instant national exposure. Just because a band puts up a
number of songs on their website, does not mean that they will get instant
exposure. I very well could put a web page together and a few people come to
visit it -- people talk about it by word-of-mouth. But word-of-mouth is very
slow. Same thing with any website. Even a site that houses songs of a
band -- and even if it did peak the interest of a substantial number of
people to actually remember them and --talk-- about them, that does
not --guarantee-- that they will get well known on a national level. Neither
would my web page. I guarantee you though, that if I advertised my site on
the radio and on TV, I'd get a boat load of people visiting if only to see
what my page was all about. That's where the record company steps in. As a
compromise, they exchange exposure for them with CD sales.
People may just lose interest in the
> RIAA's product any way.
>
Again, the only way for RIAA to go way would be for the --BANDS-- not to
sign up with them --at all--. Not the fans stealing. Until that happens,
they're not going to go away.
iBuck
>killfile), but it sure looks like some posts, this included, are equating
>"not buying RIAA products" with "downloading them instead."
>
In this case it was a segway into "Why download" the answer given that it
hurts the RIAA, because they get the bulk of the money form a CD sale..
Silver Seams
> In this case it was a segway into "Why download" the answer given
("Segue," unless you really meant a scooter...)
> that it hurts the RIAA, because they get the bulk of the money form a
> CD sale..
That's true. I actually have heard people claim that they anonymously
send cash to artists they download from. Seems like a lot of trouble to
me, unless you buy a lot of stuff from just a few artists, and I have my
doubts about whether anyone really does it.
I like my way better.
--
<URL: http://www.silverseams.com/ > Costuming, stuffed animals, etc.
Currently on Furbid: Fennec tail, tiger megaprint
<URL: http://www.furbid.ws/cgi-bin/auction.pl?justdisp&Silver_seams>
Paul R. Bennett
Please tell me when folks will truly come to understand the sheer work, the time,
even the love that must be committed by the creative, to turn that "Bright Idea"
they have into reality and share it with the rest of us.
We pay a mechanic to fix our vehicles, a gardener to keep our lawn up, a carpenter
to fix our house, a plumber to fix the plumbing, a secretary to type documents, an
accountant to keep our books straight, a tech to fix our computers, a librarian to
take care of those libraries of knowledge, a teacher to teach our kids. We pay
sums of money to people we never see, who grow our food, make our clothes...
It is all time, and effort, and work.
Why is, somehow, artistic creativity different? Why?
Why, when we pay for food, shelter, clothing, why do we have to then cheapen the
creative folks who brighten our lives?
Are their efforts worth so little?
Why can't we even pay them honor and respect, enough to help keep food on the
table....
If the every day efforts of someone pushing a lawn mower, or asking you "Do you
want fries with that" are worthy of at least a minimal paycheck, then why must the
creative, who brighten lives with song, art, stories, somehow be lessened?
Why should their sincere efforts be shrugged aside? Why should they be relegated
to what amounts to no more than a greedy consumer driven slavery, with the sad
excuse of "Mr. Evil Corporation".
To those out there, who wallow in that demand for creative work, believe that
every little note, or word or line belongs "To the Public"...
It is an artistic slavery to feed hungry, greedy appetites for more and more, and
I will admit that I am actually GLAD every time one of those hungry leeches
sucking off the creative works of hundreds gets busted.
It is a sick, sad, 20th, and 21st Century slavery, when the creative are dragged
down to feed the pleasures and desires, without any consideration, or respect, of
the masses.
And I buy CD's, and I buy DVD's, Legally.
I respect artists. I may not agree with them, might not even like them.... But I
respect them, I respect their efforts, their work.
If Art, if Creativity is to Flourish, then it needs to be nurtured, loved,
respected.
Paul
Charles Thomas
"Stormfront T. Dragon" <storm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> How are they ripping you off? They're offering you a certain product at a
> certain price. If you like the price, you can buy it. If you don't like the
> price you're free not to. Either way there's nothing being hidden from you
> around the nature of the transaction.
You're using cogent logical arguments against petulent petty children.
They'll never know what anything's worth because they're growing up in a
world where anonymous crime is the norm.
It's a shame so many can't grasp the concept that stealing something
that people worked their asses off to create is wrong.
I can only hope that karma comes around to bite them in the ass someday
and something they worked really hard for is stolen out from under them.
CT
Buckaroo Banzai
"BR" <brodr...@comcast.MUNGED.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.13....@comcast.MUNGED.net...
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 19:34:05 +0000, Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
>
> [Follow up set]
>
> > When you purchase music from a record label, you're purchasing the CD,
> > the jewel case, the art on the cover & the liner notes.
>
> Purchase what?
>
> > What exactly are you stealing when you download music? One's and
> > zero's?
>
> And if I steal your car, I'm stealing atoms, and empty space.
>
>
> > The music industry has gouged the public for far too long and now they
> > are getting their comeuppance.
>
> Vigilante justice, yea that'll work.
>
>
> > Artist's don't sell their music,
> > they sell the medium that carries their music, plain and simple.
>
> Has anyone listened to some good "medium" lately?
>
>
You make absolutely no sense.
Buckaroo Banzai
"Charles Thomas" <cthomas@REMOVE_SPAM_BLOCK.facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in
message news:cthomas-AC5DDB...@teta.doit.wisc.edu...
> In article <3F89A6CE...@worldnet.att.net>,
> "Stormfront T. Dragon" <storm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > How are they ripping you off? They're offering you a certain product at
a
> > certain price. If you like the price, you can buy it. If you don't
like the
> > price you're free not to. Either way there's nothing being hidden from
you
> > around the nature of the transaction.
>
> You're using cogent logical arguments against petulent petty children.
>
> They'll never know what anything's worth because they're growing up in a
> world where anonymous crime is the norm.
How is downloading an mp3 any different than recording and converting a
radio broadcast to mp3?
One is illegal, one is not, but the end result is the same, the person gets
the song for free.
Buckaroo Banzai
"Richard Beck" <cali...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:narib.42765$mQ2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
I think you're overstating the consequences of file sharing. The industry
will not collapse in on itself. The worst that will happen is that the
prices of CD's will come down to what the market will bear, probably around
$7 or $8 bucks. Most people wouldn't think twice about plunking that down
that much for an artist they like, but this $16 to $18 bucks being charged
now is gouging and, I suspect, price fixing. When CD's first came out, they
were a more expensive medium to fabricate and so the prices were higher than
for cassettes or vinyl. The record industry told us that as the cost to
produce these CD's came down so would the prices. Well, the cost to produce
the CD's is much, *much* smaller than to produce cassettes or vinyl, yet
CD's *still* cost more than cassettes.
As far as I'm concerned the record industry has reaped what they've sown.
BR
[follow up set]
> How is downloading an mp3 any different than recording and converting a
> radio broadcast to mp3?
> One is illegal, one is not, but the end result is the same, the person
> gets the song for free.
One is with permission. One is without.
BR
> You make absolutely no sense.
Don't worry, the audiance understands.
Hadji Derabertis
Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
People have been recording music for free for decades. Before it was taping onto
a cassette from the radio ( usually fm because of the superior sound) and now it
has shifted to the internet. Right?
Jason~~
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
> People have been recording music for free for decades. Before it was
> taping onto a cassette from the radio ( usually fm because of the
> superior sound) and now it has shifted to the internet. Right?
> Jason~~
Such taping off the radio is also illegal.
--
http://www.dextromethorphan.ws/
For information about the psychedelic drug DXM, including dangers.
Yet another murder by someone on Coricidin:
http://www.coricidin.org/kansas-coricidin-murder.htm
Hadji Derabertis
"rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski" wrote:
> Hadji Derabertis wrote:
>
> > People have been recording music for free for decades. Before it was
> > taping onto a cassette from the radio ( usually fm because of the
> > superior sound) and now it has shifted to the internet. Right?
> > Jason~~
>
> Such taping off the radio is also illegal.
Yup! But so is tossing a wrapper from your juicyfruit onto the pavement,
and crossing the street from a point other then the lights or a stop
sign, or selling a $49.95 concert ticket for $50 bucks... Right?
Jason~~
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
> "rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski" wrote:
>> Such taping off the radio is also illegal.
>
> Yup! But so is tossing a wrapper from your juicyfruit onto the
> pavement, and crossing the street from a point other then the lights
> or a stop sign, or selling a $49.95 concert ticket for $50 bucks...
> Right? Jason~~
I never said enforcing such ever has been a priority.
Stormfront T. Dragon
> People have been recording music for free for decades. Before it was taping onto
> a cassette from the radio ( usually fm because of the superior sound) and now it
> has shifted to the internet. Right?
> Jason~~
People have been committing murder for decades. People have been getting away with
committing murder for decades too. Should we stop trying to enforce murder laws as
well?
Stormfront T. Dragon
> What an ASSHOLE!
Yup. What's your point?
Buckaroo Banzai
"Stormfront T. Dragon" <storm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3F8B704F...@worldnet.att.net...
> Hadji Derabertis wrote:
>
> > People have been recording music for free for decades. Before it was
taping onto
> > a cassette from the radio ( usually fm because of the superior sound)
and now it
> > has shifted to the internet. Right?
> > Jason~~
>
> People have been committing murder for decades. People have been getting
away with
> committing murder for decades too. Should we stop trying to enforce
murder laws as
> well?
>
That's a ridiculous comparison/question.
Brian Henderson
<stephen...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>People have been recording music for free for decades. Before it was taping onto
>a cassette from the radio ( usually fm because of the superior sound) and now it
>has shifted to the internet. Right?
If you listen to the recording industry, the net is just another in a
long list of things that will utterly destroy life, the universe and
everything. They bitched when audio tape came out and tried to block
it. They claimed everyone would tape songs off the radio and stop
buying their products. Didn't happen. Then they whined about CD-R,
claiming it would be the end of the world. It wasn't. Now they're
all over the Internet claiming they'll go out of business.
They won't. They just like to complain and it's too bad the American
public has such a short memory and doesn't recall the RIAA constantly
crying wolf.
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
The 13 Oct 2003 15:15:40 GMT, iBuck <lncra...@aol.com.star> wrote:
> In this case it was a segway into "Why download" the answer given that it
> hurts the RIAA, because they get the bulk of the money form a CD sale..
Going to concerts to enjoy the artist also takes money away from RIAA.
RIAA doesn't see a dime from concert revenue (though they're trying to
change this). Like the artist? Go buy a concert ticket instead.
Bands get their money from touring, not CD sales.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/i8R0UzgNqloQMwcRAosnAKCdrn5lp6hUMvZnXoDtjT/5lNm/hgCg1Qw6
+LeLbD7oH59KhyQWPITl2Js=
=j5wx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
In alt.fan.furry rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski <rfg...@killspammersmochamail.com> wrote:
> Such taping off the radio is also illegal.
Go look at the Supreme Court records for 1988. I know the year, just
not the case. It is legal.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/i8c9UzgNqloQMwcRArpnAJ9RTBL/0kEk4LedjkBV4GZAFpeOlQCgsrE9
teJdY+8OlSedmPDAHCQJxxI=
=yD/0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
> In alt.fan.furry rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
> <rfg...@killspammersmochamail.com> wrote:
>> Such taping off the radio is also illegal.
>
> Go look at the Supreme Court records for 1988. I know the year, just
> not the case. It is legal.
Did the court rule of saving such tapes indefinitely? I know that was
the issue in the Betamax case with videotapes. In that one, the court
only ruled taping for time shifting was legal.
ohhhhhhnooooooo
<plasti...@msn.com> wrote:
>Halloween Raver wrote:
>> STARTING ON HALLOWEEN NIGHT, MUSIC LOVERS AROUND THE WORLD WILL TAKE
>> A VOW NOT TO BUY MUSIC FROM ANY RECORD LABEL OR ANY MUSIC ARTIST WHO
>> SUPPORTS SUING PEOPLE WHO SHARE MUSIC OVER THE INTERNET.
>
>yeah, but we can still buy the new britney spears record, right? please?
>Incidently, Christina Aguilera seems to be the new postergirl for
>Adbuster Magazine's "Buy Nothing Day", Nov 28.
>
>http://adbusters.org/campaigns/bnd/
>
>...must be a publicity stunt =)
Would be a kick if it actually happened...
would scare the s*%# out of the retailers.
---
"I am the modern man, who hides behind a mask,
so no one else can see my true identity"
Styx - Mr. Roboto
KK
> How is downloading an mp3 any different than recording and converting a
> radio broadcast to mp3?
> One is illegal, one is not,
Wrong. They are both illegal.
> but the end result is the same, the person gets
> the song for free.
No, the end result is not the same. In both instances, an illegal copy of
the song is made - but converting from radio to mp3 involves degrading the
audio during transmission and compression so that the mp3 'copy' is of
lesser quality than the radio 'original'.
Once it's an mp3, it can be traded/shared/downloaded/copied over and over
with no loss in quality, making their distribution much more a threat to
sales than someone taping off the radio.
KK
>> Go look at the Supreme Court records for 1988. I know the year, just
>> not the case. It is legal.
>
> Did the court rule of saving such tapes indefinitely? I know that was
> the issue in the Betamax case with videotapes. In that one, the court
> only ruled taping for time shifting was legal.
That's right. Legitimate uses for recording works that one has the right
to view/listen (whether radio/tv or a recording that one owns) are:
- the aforementioned 'time shifting', so a work can be viewed/listened to
at a later time
- coverting from one media to another, to allow its use in devices that
play media other than that on which the original is recorded, like taping
a CD to play in a car with only a cassette deck.
- maintaining a backup recording in case the original is damaged
Archiving, or keeping such a recording for the purpose of
viewing/listening multiple times, was not allowed by that ruling.
The other difference between mp3 downloading and recording from the radio
is that someone listening to the radio, or who owns a CD, is a legitimate
licensee who's allowed to 'use' that music.
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
In alt.fan.furry KK <REMOVE_k...@furburger.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:51:43 +0000, Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
>
>> How is downloading an mp3 any different than recording and converting a
>> radio broadcast to mp3?
>> One is illegal, one is not,
>
> Wrong. They are both illegal.
Burden of proof is on you now.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/i/15UzgNqloQMwcRAqAFAJ0cBo1spkr0lPVqxcWk8rdcQtPVXACfcKR3
6M1MOnrikp+0ccr7DiXZnOY=
=BUkC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
KK
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In alt.fan.furry KK <REMOVE_k...@furburger.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:51:43 +0000, Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
>>
>>> How is downloading an mp3 any different than recording and converting
>>> a radio broadcast to mp3?
>>> One is illegal, one is not,
>>
>> Wrong. They are both illegal.
>
> Burden of proof is on you now.
Says who? Buckaroo Bonzai wrote that one was, and one wasn't. Why isn't
the "burden of proof" on him?
You're a self-appointed referee with nothing to add to the thread. I
invite you to go fuck yourself soundly.
And, just so nobody thinks that my inviting Mr.Johnson to do so means that
I *can't* prove it, the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act allowed for home
or personal-use recording of copyrighted works. Certain types of devices
are listed in the AHRA as being designed or marketed for the purpose of
making digital recordings, and are charged royalties for each device and
piece of media sold. Computers are not covered by the Act and are so
recording/capturing/digitizing/compressing copyrighted works with a
computer are technically not allowed.
To be pedantically correct, 'downloading an mp3' isn't illegal, it's the
sharing of it that violates copyright.
Charles Thomas
Hadji Derabertis <stephen...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Before it was taping onto
> a cassette from the radio ( usually fm because of the superior sound) and now
> it
> has shifted to the internet. Right?
But with taping, or even making copies of CDs there's a limiting factor
- cost of the media.
No matter how generous someone is, they're not going to make a million
illegal copies of a CD or a tape for people around the world.
But with today's technology, it's quite feasible to pass around a
million illegal copies of an mp3 file because it's only content and no
delivery media.
CT
Hadji Derabertis
"Stormfront T. Dragon" wrote:
> Hadji Derabertis wrote:
>
> > People have been recording music for free for decades. Before it was taping onto
> > a cassette from the radio ( usually fm because of the superior sound) and now it
> > has shifted to the internet. Right?
> > Jason~~
>
> People have been committing murder for decades. People have been getting away with
> committing murder for decades too. Should we stop trying to enforce murder laws as
> well?
>
Your comparing murder to taping a song from the internet?
Jason~~
iBuck
>the song for free
But you -don't- get the song for free off the radio, you have noticed those
things called "radio ads" or "pledge breaks?" the stations's -pay- for the
right to distribut that music. and in the end, you pay too, either to
contribuions to the station (NPR,Pacifica) ads (Commercial Radio) or other
methods (Tuition for college radio)
iBuck
As far as I know, it actually isn't...
As I understand it, and this might be hazy, the legal onus is on the
-distributer- in other words, not the downloader, but the person he's
downloading -from-.
iBuck
>public has such a short memory and doesn't recall the RIAA constantly
>crying wolf.
>They just like to complain and it's too bad the American
>public has such a short memory and doesn't recall the RIAA constantly
>crying wolf.
And all those inventions havent been the end of the RIAA either as people have
claimed. They eventualy change their buisness model to get $$$ out anyway.
iBuck
>Once it's an mp3, it can be traded/shared/downloaded/copied over and over
>with no loss in quality, making their distribution much more a threat to
>sales than someone taping off the radio.
That presume that it -will- be distributed. In this case the poster didn't go
any farther than making the mp3, which might well never leave his personal
sphere.
Charles Thomas
Hadji Derabertis <stephen...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > People have been committing murder for decades. People have been getting
> > away with
> > committing murder for decades too. Should we stop trying to enforce murder
> > laws as
> > well?
> >
>
> Your comparing murder to taping a song from the internet?
C'mon Jason.
I know you're smart enough to get the point of his argument.
Your reply makes you look a lot more dense than I know you are.
How about you post a rebuttal instead of avoiding the point, which is
"Difficulty enforcing a law doesn't make it ok to break that law."
CT
iBuck
Bullshit... let me make this very clear, doing things that allow you to enjoy
an artists music, while not contributing to the RIAA's coffers does not "take
money away from the RIAA" that's the exact same faulty logic that the RIAA
uses when they claim a downloaded song is a CD sale "stolen" from them.
>Bands get their money from touring, not CD sales.
That's ignoring this thing called an "Advance" that they get from the studio
if they signed up...
Darth Spacey
How about "Any law is only worth upholding when the number of people
breaking it is small enough to prosecute"? IMO, that should be the acid test
against which all existing laws are sunsetted. Laws should exist to enforce
the common morality of the populace, not to artificially control the common
morality.
The acid test worked during the period of racial desegregation. It worked
(and continues to work) during the period of homosexuality becoming socially
acceptable (which is still ongoing). It worked when Prohibition was tried in
America. It worked historically (and recently) in England, raising and
lowering the age of consent to reflect currently fashionable societal norms.
It's working right now in England, where the slow and gradual
decriminalisation of pot is occuring, in a very "experimental" phase as yet.
Darth Spacey
iBuck
>How about "Any law is only worth upholding when the number of people
>breaking it is small enough to prosecute"?
And the RIAA seems to have the "procecution" of file sharers well in hand, by
targeting people who distribute -large- collections of music...
Which is of course what they should have done in the first place, instead of
spending years trying to hammer the technology itself out of existance.
BR
> Bullshit... let me make this very clear, doing things that allow you
> to enjoy an artists music, while not contributing to the RIAA's coffers
> does not "take money away from the RIAA" that's the exact same faulty
> logic that the RIAA uses when they claim a downloaded song is a CD sale
> "stolen" from them.
The crux of the issue is "is there harm?"(1) With most crimminal acts, a
path of harm can be drawn. The RIAA, like them or not, are part of the
equation that provides the music that's illegally downloaded. So assuming
worst case, and all customers are downloading, without contributing
financially, "is there harm?"
(1) A broad definition of "harm"
--
-- James Fenimore Cooper
The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes,
knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.
Hadji Derabertis
Charles Thomas wrote:
O.k, I'm not saying we shouldnt inforce murder laws, but I'm not for taking money,
time, and manpower away from the people who are investigating murder. Then thining
out this line of investigation so more time money and man power can be spent on
catching jay-walkers, people who record songs, or have armed guards at the grocery
store so people will stop eating peanuts and grapes at the salad bar.
Lets face it, 99.999 % of us have all broken the law. Either by taping a song,
jay-walking, smoking a dube on the couch with the sweetheart, buying and listening
to bootleg (import) cds, tossing cigarette butts onto the street, buying 'hot'
items, sneaking a bottle into a sporting or concert event, not putting a quarter
in the parking meter, etc etc etc.. So if were going to start enforcing one minor
law, then where does it stop? Shouldnt stronger degrees of law breaking take
precedent over minor infractions? It's not all black and white. There are some
serious grey areas here.
Pretty soon your going to have 20 undercover police banging at your door with a
search warrant in hand about to come in and tear your house apart looking for cdrs.
Is that the way to go? Would that be money and time well spent? If the record
insustry is in such despair, why not just lower their prices. When cds first came
out, the labels were charging over $20 bucks a pop. Plus they've also made the
single obsolete so the public now has to buy an entire 'album' for one or two
songs. Their greedyness has caused somewhat of a revolt, and now they're crying
"unfair". Well wasnt their price gauging unfair? Wasnt them misleading the puplic
about the cost of making a cd unfair?
I still say comparing murder to the recording of a song was nothing short of total
zanyness. If we inforced every law, then we would all have a criminal record.
Jason~~
Charles Thomas
"Darth Spacey" <darth....@NOSPAM.xyz> wrote:
> How about "Any law is only worth upholding when the number of people
> breaking it is small enough to prosecute"? IMO, that should be the acid test
> against which all existing laws are sunsetted. Laws should exist to enforce
> the common morality of the populace, not to artificially control the common
> morality.
So what you're saying is that if the majority is stealing we should
repeal laws against stealing because society has made a de facto
statement that it's ok as far as they're concerned.
Hmmm.
VERY interesting.
I'm not sure how I feel about that, but it's a compelling argument.
CT
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:51:43 +0000, Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
>
>> How is downloading an mp3 any different than recording and
>> converting a radio broadcast to mp3?
>> One is illegal, one is not,
>
> Wrong. They are both illegal.
I'd say not necessarily. Assume that I own a certain Janis Ian vinyl
single from the 1960s. I want an MP3 of it for use on my PC and MP3
player. If some other fan has made this into an MP3, and that fan also
owns the vinyl single, since we both have a license to use the recording
this should be legal. The above in fact is the actual case for 2 Janis
Ian singles I own.
Darth Spacey
Some things society will never approve of "en masse", such as theft, rape
and murder. I cannot convince myself to envisage a world (or country) where
rape is the de facto means of having sex (although it has been described in
at least one popular science fiction anthology), nor where theft is the de
facto means of acquiring property. Even absent laws preventing them, these
acts universally create a sense of absolute outrage in the victim(s family)
and this outrage very easily spreads to the population at large.
My prime example is that various sexual practices have fallen in and out of
fashionability over the many years and miles the human race has existed, and
the laws of each society have tended to change to suit those local fads.
This is also true of other social behavior, such as drug and tobacco use. In
the USA, smoking is slowly but surely being delegitimised, socially and
legally, and will doubtless become an illegal behavior within generations.
In the Netherlands, pot and prostitution are both illegal, but so many
people use them that they have become "gezogend" (if I'm remembering and
spelling the right word), i.e. the police have declared an almost universal
"nolle prosequi" for casual users. The same process is slowly starting to
happen in the UK. The opposite process is argueably occuring in the USA,
where increasing "public" (i.e. media) attention has been on the harm drugs
do, and this has lead to the toughening of anti-drug laws.
Darth Spacey
artist
<black...@yahoo.com> say...
>
> "Richard Beck" <cali...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:narib.42765$mQ2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> Sorry, but personally, I simply couldn't do the download thing. At
>> the end of the day, to take something that was never meant to be
>> obtained for
> free,
>> with out paying for it, is stealing despite how one tries to reason
>> it. A rose by anyother name smells as sweet; a pile of crap by
>> anyother name smells as nasty.
>>
>> The success of the concert revenue would be determined by how
>> successful
> the
>> band is in the first place. If they're not "COMPLETELY HOT", they
>> won't bring in very much in concert money. But with the mindset of
>> these file sharers, if that was the case, then they don't deserve
>> anything back from the folks that were interested enough to take a
>> look at their music from
> the
>> get-go (IE record sales, royalties, etc.)
>>
>> No record sales, then the record industry would collapse. No record
>> industry, then no money --at all-- for the band. Radio stations
>> couldn't play records that didn't exist, so royalties would also
>> cease to exist. So then bands are left with nothing they can have to
>> get a foot up -- at
> least
>> a foot up -- into the public eye. Isn't that what these people are
>> saying
> it
>> should all just be about in the first place? A foot up into the
>> public
> eye?
>> So the whole idea of file sharing increases awareness of the bands
>> doesn't fly. The record industry does that. I find it kind of ironic
>> how these people who swap files do tend to like the bands that these
>> major record lables back but fail to grasp that with out the help of
>> that record
> company,
>> these people would never have even heard of said bands. These bands
>> would still be playing county fairs and clubs (if they're --really--
>> good) if
> they
>> hadn't been given the exposure needed from these record companies.
>> Kill
> the
>> record industry, then you kill a conduit to terriffic bands that you
>> otherwise would never have heard of.
>>
>> Heck, I do classical music, and I shudder at the thought of recording
>> any
> of
>> it. Classical music is not really the kind of thing you can just go
>> 'on tour' with. So, as a composer, as a person devoting their entire
>> existance to the genre, I should be SOL. That's what those song
>> pirates are saying. Even though I have bills to pay, etc. Could I
>> have done an album or five? Maybe. But what's the point? They'd just
>> rip it off if it was any good.
>>
>>
>
> I think you're overstating the consequences of file sharing. The
> industry will not collapse in on itself. The worst that will happen
> is that the prices of CD's will come down to what the market will
> bear, probably around $7 or $8 bucks. Most people wouldn't think
> twice about plunking that down that much for an artist they like, but
> this $16 to $18 bucks being charged now is gouging and, I suspect,
> price fixing. When CD's first came out, they were a more expensive
> medium to fabricate and so the prices were higher than for cassettes
> or vinyl. The record industry told us that as the cost to produce
> these CD's came down so would the prices. Well, the cost to produce
> the CD's is much, *much* smaller than to produce cassettes or vinyl,
> yet CD's *still* cost more than cassettes.
> As far as I'm concerned the record industry has reaped what they've
> sown.
Yes, but the production costs aren't the only ones incurred. There is the
cost of the mass marketing, for example, and the cost of dealing with
hackers. If anything, chance of prices going up is just as good as going
down. Moreover, since the mass market is largely homogenious and there
isn't much in the way of competition to drive prices down, I would bet on
prices going up, especially since the filesharing despresses the demand
further. The prices might drop thereafter, but by that point I'm betting on
a collapse.
In the end, it's going to be the consumer that will reap what THEY sow.
Try searching for 'China + Record Industry' or 'China + Music Sales' on
www.google.com
http://www.iht.com/articles/87521.html
or
http://www.ifpi.org/site-content/press/20030710.html
Or if you don't trust those, look for yourself.
--
AIM: GCCFurryBoy
mell...@yahoo.com
http://www.practialdesigns.com/
"Neither hope nor fear" -- Isabella d'Este
"For to do either is to fall to the beast" -- Joseph Richmond
Broadway
Let's start with those lower prices..
>Yes, but the production costs aren't the only ones incurred. There is the
>cost of the mass marketing, for example, and the cost of dealing with
>hackers. If anything, chance of prices going up is just as good as going
>down. Moreover, since the mass market is largely homogenious and there
>isn't much in the way of competition to drive prices down, I would bet on
>prices going up, especially since the filesharing despresses the demand
>further. The prices might drop thereafter, but by that point I'm betting on
>a collapse.
Please.
No product gets the free ride mass market music does and the industry didn't
decide that they couldn't lower prices because file sharing happened.
They had years to lower the wholesale, price-fixed cost of a unit of music.
They didn't, they wouldn't and they won't even though they said they would.
They don't have to, they have a guarantee to take sheep money.
_________________________________________________
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
In alt.fan.furry artist <mell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yes, but the production costs aren't the only ones incurred. There is the
> cost of the mass marketing, for example, and the cost of dealing with
> hackers. If anything, chance of prices going up is just as good as going
> down. Moreover, since the mass market is largely homogenious and there
> isn't much in the way of competition to drive prices down, I would bet on
> prices going up, especially since the filesharing despresses the demand
> further. The prices might drop thereafter, but by that point I'm betting on
> a collapse.
I rmemeber seeing the breakdown as to where the $18/cd goes in Wired a
while back. RIAA is greatly inflating the costs and keeping the
difference. Even if that wasn't the case, what you describe violates
basic economics. What you see are consumers fighting back against
prices artificially fixed against what the market is willing to
tolerate.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/jMatUzgNqloQMwcRAhfIAJ91IejRMopvQmLiYHY6NN8gZNRlswCfXJEB
YMu0tA6k4Bkbb5Kqq7l6DMU=
=RYyy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Buckaroo Banzai
"KK" <REMOVE_k...@furburger.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.14....@furburger.net...
Is that like committing suicide isn't illegal, but attempting to committee
suicide is illegal?
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
In alt.fan.furry Buckaroo Banzai <black...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Is that like committing suicide isn't illegal, but attempting to committee
> suicide is illegal?
Committing suicide is illegal, you just can't press charges against a
corpse.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/jQgHUzgNqloQMwcRAog1AKDF6+o/ChT1AP6qLpKLkHAReqzGwgCfeEOI
1JR1i9pWYyhT28pkA3uGFrE=
=N99o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Buckaroo Banzai
"Paul Johnson" <ba...@ursine.ca> wrote in message
news:7pdv51-...@ursine.ca...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In alt.fan.furry Buckaroo Banzai <black...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Is that like committing suicide isn't illegal, but attempting to
committee
> > suicide is illegal?
>
> Committing suicide is illegal, you just can't press charges against a
> corpse.
Well if you know that to be a fact, please provide the particulars of the
law. If not, just learn how to gracefully admit that you're wrong.
Wanderer
news:il9jb.56799$mQ2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > corpse.
>
> Well if you know that to be a fact, please provide the particulars of the
> law. If not, just learn how to gracefully admit that you're wrong.
>
You seem to furget how the law is interpreted.:) Committing suicide is an
act of murder against yourself. As such, it is illegal, but difficult to
prosecute. Remember, murder is defined as "the act of causing the death of
an individual", not "another individual".
Yours quickly,
The law-researching,
Wanderer
wand...@ticnet.com
"Where am I going? I don't quite know.
What does it matter *where* people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow!
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I* don't know!"
-- a. a. milne
KK
> KK wrote:
>> Wrong. They are both illegal.
>
> I'd say not necessarily. Assume that I own a certain Janis Ian vinyl
> single from the 1960s. I want an MP3 of it for use on my PC and MP3
> player. If some other fan has made this into an MP3, and that fan also
> owns the vinyl single, since we both have a license to use the recording
> this should be legal. The above in fact is the actual case for 2 Janis
> Ian singles I own.
Yup, you're right. I followed up to an earlier post, saying that
technically it's not the downloader that's doing something illegal, but
the person sharing it.
Buckaroo Banzai
"Wanderer" <wand...@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:voqeud4...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Buckaroo Banzai" <black...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:il9jb.56799$mQ2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Paul Johnson" <ba...@ursine.ca> wrote in message
> > news:7pdv51-...@ursine.ca...
> > > Committing suicide is illegal, you just can't press charges against a
> > > corpse.
> >
> > Well if you know that to be a fact, please provide the particulars of
the
> > law. If not, just learn how to gracefully admit that you're wrong.
> >
>
> You seem to furget how the law is interpreted.:) Committing suicide is an
> act of murder against yourself. As such, it is illegal, but difficult to
> prosecute. Remember, murder is defined as "the act of causing the death
of
> an individual", not "another individual".
>
> Yours quickly,
>
> The law-researching,
>
> Wanderer
Well, if you research the law, you can provide the specific law you're
basing your opinion on, right? Yeah, I didn't think so.... And BTW
remember, murder is homicide, not suicide.
iBuck
>worst case, and all customers are downloading, without contributing
>financially, "is there harm?"
Or simply not buying CD's which is what we're kinda discussing, once you do
that, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't -matter- if you download bootlegs or
not.
This is my problem with what's been bandied about. The RIAA and the Artists
-both- draw money from CD sales. If you claim that you're not harming the
artists by downloading, then it stands to reason that you're not hurting the
RIAA either, the convers would also be true, if you're harming the RIAA, it
follows that you're harming the artists as well.
The other issue I have is that people saying, the "RIAA gets teh money" , ,
when the fact of the matter is that the -Music Studios- and thereby their
-parent coperations- get the bulk of the money, the RIAA is just a trade
orgnization that the studios contribute to. So the slice of the pie that
people are claiming goes to "The RIAA" is in fact going to the studios, where
it's put to a -lot- of uses other than just funding anti-piracy campaigns..
betamax
boycott thing will not work
the days of "burning or bras" and "Im as mad a s hell and not going to
take it anymore" are goneg
new generation kids ARE selfish and dont care\\\
I dont feel sorry for record companies
noone seems to mention in 1981 when cds came out record companies came
out with new cds to ALL of the music previous, artists didnt get shit
and the record companies made MILLIONS after MILLIONS
15.99 and up for one song i like ona cd I wont pay
All artists want is a penny a song, yes a penny'
hell they only get 3 to 4 cents an album
im sure we would pay 4 to 5 bucks to download an album online
until that happens ill be downloading free music
good luck i support your effort,
p.s. i work in the music industry, and may lose my job but we need to
make it more in sync for all
Wanderer
an
> > act of murder against yourself. As such, it is illegal, but difficult
to
> > prosecute. Remember, murder is defined as "the act of causing the death
> of
> > an individual", not "another individual".
> >
> basing your opinion on, right? Yeah, I didn't think so.... And BTW
> remember, murder is homicide, not suicide.
>
Hm... looking at more information, it seems I'm slightly behind the curve on
this one:
http://ofcn.org/cyber.serv/hwp/hwc/ethics/information/suicide/ch4.txt
"Suicide and the Law
The legal treatment of suicide has ancient roots, reflecting
cultural, religious, and pragmatic beliefs about human life,
individual responsibility, and the relationship between the
individual and the state. While suicide has been illegal throughout
most of history, it is no longer considered a crime anywhere in the
United States. However, as discussed below, many states prohibit
assisting a suicide, and no state permits euthanasia, regardless of
the individual's consent.
In England, under the common law, suicide was considered
"self-murder" and was ranked "among the highest crimes."(22) Writing
in the 18th century, William Blackstone asserted that "the suicide
is guilty of a double offense; one spiritual, in invading the
perogative of the Almighty, and rushing into his immediate presence
uncalled for; the other temporal, against the king, who hath an
interest in the preservation of all his subjects."(23) The usual
punishment for committing suicide was burial in the public highway
with a stake driven through the body and forfeiture of the suicide's
property to the crown.(24) The extent of the property forfeited
depended on the motivations behind the suicidal act. If the suicide
was committed "without any cause, through anger or ill will," the
suicide lost both his lands and his chattels to the king. If,
however, the suicide was committed "from weariness of life or
impatience of pain," only the chattels were forfeited, and the land
descended to the suicide's heirs. Finally, if the individual who
committed suicide was insane at the time of his or her act, neither
land nor chattels were forfeited to the king.(25) Implicit in this
gradation of punishment was the notion that suicide, while always
wrong, was less blameworthy under certain circumstances."
Mea culpa. I misinterpreted the law, and do apologize.
Yours with hat in hand,
The mistake-correcting,
Rick Pikul
black...@yahoo.com says...> message news:cthomas-AC5DDB...@teta.doit.wisc.edu...
> > In article <3F89A6CE...@worldnet.att.net>,
> > "Stormfront T. Dragon" <storm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > > How are they ripping you off? They're offering you a certain product at
> a
> > > certain price. If you like the price, you can buy it. If you don't
> like the
> > > price you're free not to. Either way there's nothing being hidden from
> you
> > > around the nature of the transaction.
> >
> > You're using cogent logical arguments against petulent petty children.
> >
> > They'll never know what anything's worth because they're growing up in a
> > world where anonymous crime is the norm.
>
> How is downloading an mp3 any different than recording and converting a
> radio broadcast to mp3?
Actually, recording off of broadcast is legal if and only if
permission was granted or if you are doing it to time shift, (i.e.
recording at one time, listening/viewing at a later time and not
archiving the recording).
--
Phoenix
Les
Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
> > You seem to furget how the law is interpreted.:) Committing suicide is an
> > act of murder against yourself. As such, it is illegal, but difficult to
> > prosecute. Remember, murder is defined as "the act of causing the death
> of
> > an individual", not "another individual".
> >
> > Yours quickly,
> >
> > The law-researching,
> >
> > Wanderer
>
> Well, if you research the law, you can provide the specific law you're
> basing your opinion on, right? Yeah, I didn't think so.... And BTW
> remember, murder is homicide, not suicide.
Umm, what the hell does this have to do with MP3's?
-Les
--
If you simply Skin them, they die.
-Dudley, Sci-fi Guy.
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
In alt.fan.furry Rick Pikul <rwp...@idirect.com> wrote:
> Actually, recording off of broadcast is legal if and only if
> permission was granted or if you are doing it to time shift, (i.e.
> recording at one time, listening/viewing at a later time and not
> archiving the recording).
Then explain why the MPAA and the television companies haven't had a
shitfit over TiVo's "Save to VCR" feature.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/jjc2UzgNqloQMwcRAhW5AJ9p7xENik1lUg80yYGpK4+sMAY5TQCcDBxB
veSbTNb14rimgTD9Z23f5LA=
=nlt0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
M. Mitchell Marmel
wrote:
> > Actually, recording off of broadcast is legal if and only if
> > permission was granted or if you are doing it to time shift, (i.e.
> > recording at one time, listening/viewing at a later time and not
> > archiving the recording).
>
> Then explain why the MPAA and the television companies haven't had a
> shitfit over TiVo's "Save to VCR" feature.
Because it's a form of timeshifting? The hard drive gets full, so you
dump to tape. :D
-MMM-
Charles Thomas
> Umm, what the hell does this have to do with MP3's?
>
>
> -Les
> --
> If you simply Skin them, they die.
> -Dudley, Sci-fi Guy.
Exactly.
A typical "I can't argue the actual point so I'll argue some other
non-related point" tactic.
CT
Buckaroo Banzai
Why don't you noodniks actually put out a little effort and read the thread,
then you'll know what it has to do with MP3's.
iBuck
Okay, we've establisht that you're a selfish twat, now, why are we supposed
to care about your opinion?