Nationwide Halloween RAVE Against RIAA!!

[Halloween Raver]

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.

******
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:
***@hotmail.com.

For more information about Whose Nieuws Crue,
email:
***@hotmail.com

[Mark]

Post by Halloween Raver
Join THE HALLOWEEN RAVE AGAINST THE BULLIES: In the Record Industry!!

Will all the kids remeber the reason when they come down from the 'X' ride?

Just kidding... kind of.

Nice thought, but RIAA won't care unfortunatly.

-Mark
http://www.gotlost.net

[Brett Banditelli]

Post by Mark
Nice thought, but RIAA won't care unfortunatly.

i dotn think its a nice thought, i somehow dont think the RIAA is
afraid ov RAVERS

Brett/banditelli

[Bat]

Post by Halloween Raver
Join THE HALLOWEEN RAVE AGAINST THE BULLIES: In the Record Industry!!
DON'T JUST GROOVE - MOVE!!
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

Just had to pop in (I rarely do anymore) but if you honestly feel like this
is a good thing to support, then I hope someone breaks into your home,
steals ALL your stuff and sells it on ebay while you watch and can do
nothing about.

Then tell me how cool and leet it is to rip artists and labels off.

Post by Halloween Raver
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!

This has NOTHING to do with the RIAA and sueing people for p2p thievery.
It's also a bit erroneous... however, while the major music labels have been
corrupt and unfair on some levels, with the advent of technology and the
ability for more and more smaller labels to start up and release their own
items, more and more artists had been getting their fair share.... that is
until massive p2p piracy took off. The big fish are the last to be effected
by this and the smaller labels who YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO SUPPORT got hurt the
fastest and hardest. I've seen it and experienced it first hand quite a few
times.

Technology has moved hard and fast and while I agree that the cost of a CD
is WAY overpriced (which is a record label/distributer/end store problem),
and that I've had my opinions against the RIAA in the beginning when they
were way too overzealous, what they're doing now I hope they do 100000 times
more.

So to all those idiots sitting on p2p networks or copying/stealing what
isn't their and conspiring to further pirate what's NOT THEIRS IN THE FIRST
PLACE TO RELEASE, I hope you get popped. I'd convict your immature stupid
little asses in a heartbeat.

Get A Clue Time:

Address how to lower CD prices which is the main problem. Pirating music
just shows what a hippocrite you are as if you choose to pirate rather then
say intelligently boycott the stores and major labels FIRST, then you've
done nothing but prove that you're a whining little punk ass bitch thief.
How utterly STUPID of you to do that pubically!

You want to do something truely right about this problem? Then grow up and
deal with it properly. Start a petition against Tower Records, Kmart,
Bordners, etc... AND THE MAJOR OFFENDING RECORD LABELS THEMSELVES (this is
more for the majors as indies will simply benefit from this) and demand the
restructuring of pricing so that CD's are back to a retail price of
$5.99-$9.99

Let them deal with it. Rehash or remove wasteful distributers and
distribution costs which always jack the prices up $5-$8 and for no real
reason.

Labels for the most part are trying to be fair to artists but have
utilities, salaries, manufacturing costs, advertising costs, etc. to pay ON
TOP of royalties. Labels SHOULD send direct to stores and that should be
it - cost of CD to make after paying everone: $3-$5. Send to store. Store
makes profit by adding $2-$4. END OF STORY. Why doesn't that happen? ADDRESS
THAT.

Otherwise, you will loose and in doing so, hurt a lot of innocent artists
and small labels that WERE on your side but now, like me, have been
basically hurt by your actions a lot more then you think while the major
labels really haven't been too affected until now, and their response is
something I think a lot of labels and artists such as myself would of liked
to do to your thieving little punk bitch ass. SUE IT FOR STEALING WHAT'S NOT
YOURS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

End of story.

Blah...

^*^

[JWald]

Pubically? ; -{)

--
jwald

"Leave the gun. Take the cannoli."
Clemenza - Godfather I
"Bat" <***@cyberden.com> wrote in message news:6Zzkb.30615$***@fed1read01...
<snipped>

Post by Bat
Address how to lower CD prices which is the main problem. Pirating music
just shows what a hippocrite you are as if you choose to pirate rather then
say intelligently boycott the stores and major labels FIRST, then you've
done nothing but prove that you're a whining little punk ass bitch thief.
How utterly STUPID of you to do that pubically!

[Bat]

Post by JWald
Pubically? ; -{)

lol - yea, typo - you get the idea no?

[suntzu]

Post by Bat

Post by Halloween Raver
Join THE HALLOWEEN RAVE AGAINST THE BULLIES: In the Record Industry!!
DON'T JUST GROOVE - MOVE!!
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

Just had to pop in (I rarely do anymore) but if you honestly feel like this
is a good thing to support, then I hope someone breaks into your home,
steals ALL your stuff and sells it on ebay while you watch and can do
nothing about.
Then tell me how cool and leet it is to rip artists and labels off.

with a simple understanding of economics and the differences between
tangible goods and intellectual property, you too can keep yourself from
making jackass comments like this!

Post by Bat

Post by Halloween Raver
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!

This has NOTHING to do with the RIAA and sueing people for p2p thievery.
It's also a bit erroneous... however, while the major music labels have been
corrupt and unfair on some levels, with the advent of technology and the
ability for more and more smaller labels to start up and release their own
items, more and more artists had been getting their fair share.... that is
until massive p2p piracy took off. The big fish are the last to be effected
by this and the smaller labels who YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO SUPPORT got hurt the
fastest and hardest. I've seen it and experienced it first hand quite a few
times.
Technology has moved hard and fast and while I agree that the cost of a CD
is WAY overpriced (which is a record label/distributer/end store problem),
and that I've had my opinions against the RIAA in the beginning when they
were way too overzealous, what they're doing now I hope they do 100000 times
more.
So to all those idiots sitting on p2p networks or copying/stealing what
isn't their and conspiring to further pirate what's NOT THEIRS IN THE FIRST
PLACE TO RELEASE, I hope you get popped. I'd convict your immature stupid
little asses in a heartbeat.

i know no one (say it with me, "no one") who bought a significant amount
of music (even a few CD's a year) that doesn't buy music anymore because
of filesharing. everyone i know who does nothing but download didn't
buy music anyway. so the labels aren't losing money because of that
filesharing. filesharing got me buying more music (and got me to stop
buying whole albums for 1 or 2 songs) in general (or at least, it gave
me a longer standing list of stuff to buy when i had the cash). and
nowadays i try to buy less from major labels, because i know the artist
will see more of the money if it's going to a smaller label. so i'm
actually sticking to most of the pre-DMCA fair use standards. i mean,
everything changed after the DMCA, but "an unjust law is no law at all,"
and all that stuff.

i know that's anecdotal evidence, but there are some statistics to back
it up. the correlation between the filesharing explosion and the record
sales decline is weak at best (remember that when it was at it's peak w/
napster, record sales were up). and a proven (or even strong) causative
link is non-existent.

if you really like the music, mp3 isn't a great substitute for having
the CD (even discounting stuff like physical media and liner notes).
it's called lossy compression for a reason.
get a clue, you're terribly misinformed. stop plugging your ears and
yelling that sharing music is wrong no matter what.

Post by Bat
Address how to lower CD prices which is the main problem. Pirating music
just shows what a hippocrite you are as if you choose to pirate rather then
say intelligently boycott the stores and major labels FIRST, then you've
done nothing but prove that you're a whining little punk ass bitch thief.
How utterly STUPID of you to do that pubically!
You want to do something truely right about this problem? Then grow up and
deal with it properly. Start a petition against Tower Records, Kmart,
Bordners, etc... AND THE MAJOR OFFENDING RECORD LABELS THEMSELVES (this is
more for the majors as indies will simply benefit from this) and demand the
restructuring of pricing so that CD's are back to a retail price of
$5.99-$9.99
Let them deal with it. Rehash or remove wasteful distributers and
distribution costs which always jack the prices up $5-$8 and for no real
reason.
Labels for the most part are trying to be fair to artists but have
utilities, salaries, manufacturing costs, advertising costs, etc. to pay ON
TOP of royalties. Labels SHOULD send direct to stores and that should be
it - cost of CD to make after paying everone: $3-$5. Send to store. Store
makes profit by adding $2-$4. END OF STORY. Why doesn't that happen? ADDRESS
THAT.
Otherwise, you will loose and in doing so, hurt a lot of innocent artists
and small labels that WERE on your side but now, like me, have been
basically hurt by your actions a lot more then you think while the major
labels really haven't been too affected until now, and their response is
something I think a lot of labels and artists such as myself would of liked
to do to your thieving little punk bitch ass. SUE IT FOR STEALING WHAT'S NOT
YOURS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
End of story.
Blah...
^*^

[Bat]

----- Original Message -----
From: "suntzu" <***@freeshell.org>
Newsgroups:
rec.music.gdead,rec.music.hip-hop,rec.music.industrial,rec.music.makers.guit
ar,rec.music.makers.percussion
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: Nationwide Halloween RAVE Against RIAA!!

Post by suntzu
stop plugging your ears and
yelling that sharing music is wrong no matter what.

You would make a good republican.
Thanks for proving my point in one sentence you complete moron.
Unfortunately this also proves that everything else you said was as stupid
and erroneous.

[suntzu]

Post by Bat
----- Original Message -----
rec.music.gdead,rec.music.hip-hop,rec.music.industrial,rec.music.makers.guit
ar,rec.music.makers.percussion
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: Nationwide Halloween RAVE Against RIAA!!

Post by suntzu
stop plugging your ears and
yelling that sharing music is wrong no matter what.

You would make a good republican.

because republicans are pro-file-sharing? i've been accused of plenty
of things, but i don't think being a republican was ever one of them.

Post by Bat
Thanks for proving my point in one sentence you complete moron.
Unfortunately this also proves that everything else you said was as stupid
and erroneous.

and so instead of refuting my arguments you went for a weak ad hominem?
if you're gonna resort to personal attacks and evading the question,
at least make it funny.

[Bat]

Post by suntzu

Post by Bat
----- Original Message -----

rec.music.gdead,rec.music.hip-hop,rec.music.industrial,rec.music.makers.guit

Post by suntzu

Post by Bat
ar,rec.music.makers.percussion
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: Nationwide Halloween RAVE Against RIAA!!

Post by suntzu
stop plugging your ears and
yelling that sharing music is wrong no matter what.

You would make a good republican.

because republicans are pro-file-sharing? i've been accused of plenty
of things, but i don't think being a republican was ever one of them.

Smart enough to in one sentence try to condone and justify doing something
illegal and harmful to others for the sake of your own greed.

But I'm not surprised you didn't understand that either.

[Ed Cregger]

Sharing the music is fine, IF YOU PAY FOR IT!

Jeez, the nerve of some people. <G>

Ed Cregger

Post by Bat

Post by suntzu

Post by Bat
----- Original Message -----

rec.music.gdead,rec.music.hip-hop,rec.music.industrial,rec.music.makers.guit

Post by Bat

Post by suntzu

Post by Bat
ar,rec.music.makers.percussion
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: Nationwide Halloween RAVE Against RIAA!!

Post by suntzu
stop plugging your ears and
yelling that sharing music is wrong no matter what.

You would make a good republican.

because republicans are pro-file-sharing? i've been accused of plenty
of things, but i don't think being a republican was ever one of them.

Smart enough to in one sentence try to condone and justify doing something
illegal and harmful to others for the sake of your own greed.
But I'm not surprised you didn't understand that either.

[Paul's penis is HELL, boy.]

Post by Ed Cregger
Sharing the music is fine, IF YOU PAY FOR IT!
Jeez, the nerve of some people. <G>

what's so tough to understand about somebody wanting to recieve money in
exchange for their product?

damn kids
--
np: Laibach - Life is Life

AIM: WhoKilledtheJAMs
dukncovr at kmfdm dot com
http://www.rit.edu/~pmy5192
http://fleischbackstein.iuma.com
http://brb.whereshitler.com

"youre just jelous because after 8 years online i still cant type right

bitch"
-Brett

[Ed Cregger]

I have wondered the same thing myself. How many of them would go to work if
they did not receive a paycheck? None.

Ed Cregger

Post by Paul's penis is HELL, boy.

Post by Ed Cregger
Sharing the music is fine, IF YOU PAY FOR IT!
Jeez, the nerve of some people. <G>

what's so tough to understand about somebody wanting to recieve money in
exchange for their product?
damn kids
--
np: Laibach - Life is Life
AIM: WhoKilledtheJAMs
dukncovr at kmfdm dot com
http://www.rit.edu/~pmy5192
http://fleischbackstein.iuma.com
http://brb.whereshitler.com
"youre just jelous because after 8 years online i still cant type right
bitch"
-Brett

[DG]

Post by Ed Cregger
I have wondered the same thing myself. How many of them would go to work if
they did not receive a paycheck? None.

They are working in an industry that has been convicted of collusion.
F the RIAA.

[Ed Cregger]

If people do not buy the music, the musicians and songwriters do not get
paid.

The fact that the powers-that-be are not behaving as they should does not
justify stealing copyrighted material.

Everyone knows that two wrongs do not make a right. It is simplistic, but
true. Stealing is stealing, period.

Ed Cregger

Post by DG

Post by Ed Cregger
I have wondered the same thing myself. How many of them would go to work if
they did not receive a paycheck? None.

They are working in an industry that has been convicted of collusion.
F the RIAA.

[John P.]

Post by Ed Cregger
Everyone knows that two wrongs do not make a right. It is simplistic, but
true. Stealing is stealing, period.

I think it is overly simplistic to say stealing is stealing, period. Even
something as extreme as killing someone is not so black and white (Murder,
Manslaughter, Justifiable homicide, Self defense, etc.). Every area of law
has shades of black and white and gray.

Stealing leans more towards depriving another of their property. Copyright
violations do no such thing. Yes, copyright violations ARE illegal, but they
are not stealing.

[Bat]

Post by John P.

Post by Ed Cregger
Everyone knows that two wrongs do not make a right. It is simplistic, but
true. Stealing is stealing, period.

I think it is overly simplistic to say stealing is stealing, period. Even
something as extreme as killing someone is not so black and white (Murder,
Manslaughter, Justifiable homicide, Self defense, etc.). Every area of law
has shades of black and white and gray.
Stealing leans more towards depriving another of their property. Copyright
violations do no such thing. Yes, copyright violations ARE illegal, but they
are not stealing.

LOL - another contradiction in one sentence... for your information
illegal=stealing.

ok... let me try and spell it out to you.

I want you to write either a book, some music, anything that requires you to
have a contract with a label, publisher, etc., that will release your
endeavor of labor and hard work in the hopes that in turn, you will receive
a small amount of restitution for it. Nothing near as much as if you sold it
yourself on the street. Probably 1/8th to 1/10th of that.

Ok - Feel proud and happy that your work is offered to the public for what
you would hope to be a fair and reasonable price, albiet sometimes it's not
too fair these days (overpriced CD's) but stick with me on this one, let's
assume it's basically fair and reasonable.

Now watch how someone starts posting your hard work on the internet FOR
1,000,000 other people to simply take from them without permission from you,
your label, your publisher.

Watch how 1,000,000 people will never pay for what rightfully you negotiated
for because of your hard work in creating it. Do the math.

Even if you feel the labels and stores charge too much these days for your
works, do you still feel that you should become the fall guy and have your
stuff just STOLEN because of it?

In general, filesharing is not the issue, it's users who create a gateway to
giveaway what's legally and MORALLY not theirs to give away in the first
place.

[John P.]

Post by Bat
LOL - another contradiction in one sentence... for your information
illegal=stealing.

Is english a second language for you? Speeding is illegal - and it's not
stealing. Running a red light is illegal and it is not stealing. Illegal
does NOT = stealing. Stealing is illegal, but everything that is illegal is
not stealing. ... but let's move on, perhaps you make a valid point further
down.

<Much snipped>

Post by Bat
Even if you feel the labels and stores charge too much these days for your
works, do you still feel that you should become the fall guy and have your
stuff just STOLEN because of it?

Your question is; Would I mind if someone violated copyright law to make
illegal copies of my work? Yes I would mind. ... but, knowing english and
the law as I do (which isn't everything, but enough), I would realize that
nothing had been stolen from me as I had not been deprived of any property.
I WOULD realize that an illegal copyright violation had occurred.

Post by Bat
In general, filesharing is not the issue, it's users who create a gateway to
giveaway what's legally and MORALLY not theirs to give away in the first
place.

Did I say otherwise?

[Ricky W. Hunt]

Post by John P.
Your question is; Would I mind if someone violated copyright law to make
illegal copies of my work? Yes I would mind. ... but, knowing english and
the law as I do (which isn't everything, but enough), I would realize that
nothing had been stolen from me as I had not been deprived of any property.
I WOULD realize that an illegal copyright violation had occurred.

You seem to be hung up on the "physical property". When you do this you are
stopping people from making a living with their job. According to your
philosophy I could hack into the bank's computer and withdraw all of your
funds for my personal use since I'm not really "taking anything physically"
from you.

[John P.]

Post by Ricky W. Hunt
You seem to be hung up on the "physical property". When you do this you are
stopping people from making a living with their job.

Actually Rick, I am just clarifying a point of fact - Copying a work is not
stealing.
The hang up here is that you take point and then try to add more to it (The
idea that *I* think pirating copyrighted work is OK). You are wrong on both
points.

Post by Ricky W. Hunt
According to your philosophy I could hack into the bank's computer and
withdraw all of your funds for my personal use since I'm not really

"taking

Post by Ricky W. Hunt
anything physically" from you.

According to my philosophy, you can do nothing illegal. According to YOUR
philosophy, if you steal my money, I can call it murder if I wish to elicit
a better response from law enforcement, the media or the general public.
That is exactly why the music industry has chosen to call downloading music
"stealing". It is no such thing by legal definition, but it gets a better
response from the media.

[Ricky W. Hunt]

Post by John P.
According to my philosophy, you can do nothing illegal. According to YOUR
philosophy, if you steal my money, I can call it murder if I wish to elicit
a better response from law enforcement, the media or the general public.
That is exactly why the music industry has chosen to call downloading music
"stealing". It is no such thing by legal definition, but it gets a better
response from the media.

So it's just the "terminology" you have a problem with? You still think it's
just as wrong no matter what you call it? While I agree terms need to be
clear saying "it's illegal but not stealing" makes the initiated think "oh,
it's illegal, but there's no harm in it".

[John P.]

Post by Ricky W. Hunt
So it's just the "terminology" you have a problem with? You still think it's
just as wrong no matter what you call it? While I agree terms need to be
clear saying "it's illegal but not stealing" makes the initiated think "oh,
it's illegal, but there's no harm in it".

Yes. I'm rather anal about dealing with matters as accurately as possible.
Far too often, "people", the media, whomever, choose words in order to
garner a more desirable response to their position. In doing so, I think it
harms them. (i.e., if you catch one lie or one inaccuracy, you then might
assume that there are more lies or inaccuracies involved).

I have no doubt that it is the record companies who first chose to label
music piracy as stealing. Technically, legally, it is not. As a musician, I
am all for getting paid for my work, just call a spade a spade.

[Bat]

Post by John P.

Post by Ricky W. Hunt
So it's just the "terminology" you have a problem with? You still think

it's

Post by Ricky W. Hunt
just as wrong no matter what you call it? While I agree terms need to be
clear saying "it's illegal but not stealing" makes the initiated think

"oh,

Post by Ricky W. Hunt
it's illegal, but there's no harm in it".

Yes. I'm rather anal about dealing with matters as accurately as possible.
Far too often, "people", the media, whomever, choose words in order to
garner a more desirable response to their position. In doing so, I think it
harms them. (i.e., if you catch one lie or one inaccuracy, you then might
assume that there are more lies or inaccuracies involved).
I have no doubt that it is the record companies who first chose to label
music piracy as stealing. Technically, legally, it is not. As a musician, I
am all for getting paid for my work, just call a spade a spade.

You're a musician and you claim that music piracy is not stealing? Then it's
obvious that you're completely uneducated as to how the process of releasing
music via a label works else you wouldn't have made such a stupid remark.

Do you even know what ASCAP or BMI is?

Do you even know it is ILLEGAL to play music in a store or public place
without a license. Technically and in the lawbooks?

Do you even know it is ILLEGAL to mention in even a tiny newsletter amongst
a small group of people that you will be showing a Disney movie, even for
free? (Yea, that's a lame law, but it is a law and it's been enforced.)

There are a LOT of things you obviously don't understand because you are not
in a position to care. You don't make a livelyhood off of it or even chump
change.

Give your own stuff away, I have no problem with that. Sign to a label and
then don't come crying to mama when your sales drop by 5000 or so CD's each
release and all of a sudden, you're out thousands of dollars you once
received which helped you to pay the rent and bills for another six months
or so, so you could create some more.

[John P.]

Post by Bat
You're a musician and you claim that music piracy is not stealing? Then it's
obvious that you're completely uneducated as to how the process of releasing
music via a label works else you wouldn't have made such a stupid remark.

You're either not reading, or just not understanding. This isn't rocket
science. NO, a copyright violation is not stealing. It is illegal, but it is
not stealing. It is wrong, but it is not stealing. If a person is arrested
for a copyright violation, they will not be charged with theft. It's a
simple technical legal matter that does not warrant this level of
discussion.

Post by Bat
Do you even know what ASCAP or BMI is?

Yes. And neither has anything to do with the legal fact that a copyright
violation is not legally described as stealing.

Post by Bat
Do you even know it is ILLEGAL to play music in a store or public place
without a license. Technically and in the lawbooks?

Yes. And and it has to do with the legal fact that a copyright violation is
not legally described as stealing.

Post by Bat
Do you even know it is ILLEGAL to mention in even a tiny newsletter amongst
a small group of people that you will be showing a Disney movie, even for
free? (Yea, that's a lame law, but it is a law and it's been enforced.)

Yes. And and it has to do with the legal fact that a copyright violation is
not legally described as stealing.

Post by Bat
There are a LOT of things you obviously don't understand because you are not
in a position to care. You don't make a livelyhood off of it or even chump
change.

There are a lot fo things I don't undertand (like how they get the creamy
filling into a Hostess cupcake), but on thing I DO understand is that a
copyright violation is not legally described as stealing.

Post by Bat
Give your own stuff away, I have no problem with that. Sign to a label and
then don't come crying to mama when your sales drop by 5000 or so CD's each
release and all of a sudden, you're out thousands of dollars you once
received which helped you to pay the rent and bills for another six months
or so, so you could create some more.

Reading comprehension isn't big on your list, is it. I have clearly stated
that my position is simply that a copyright violation is not legally
described as stealing. I have not, at any point in this conversation,
suggested that copyright violations were not or should not be illegal.

It is possible at this point, that I have said "a copyright violation is not
legally described as stealing" so that you might grasp that this is the ONLY
point of contention I have made. You can argue and whine all you like, but
your best bet would be to check with a lawyer or read up on copyright law.
Obviously, nothing I say offers any degree of penetration. Check it out for
yourself. THEN if you wish to disagree, perhaps we can discuss it further.

[Bat]

Post by John P.

Post by Ricky W. Hunt
You seem to be hung up on the "physical property". When you do this you

are

Post by Ricky W. Hunt
stopping people from making a living with their job.

Actually Rick, I am just clarifying a point of fact - Copying a work is not
stealing.

Wow - how retarded are you?

Allowing your own CD you paid for to be copied by others is illegal. It
always has been.

In the past, making a tape for a friend has technically been illegal but
never pursued because it was a flawed copy, never as good as the original
and if anything, did more good as tiny advertising then harming royalties
for artists as people would then want to get their own LP/CD for themselves.

Today however, 1:1 digital mp3 copies OF thousands of ENTIRE FUCKING ALBUMS
on highspeed bandwidth servers complete with 300 dpi scans of all artwork
DRAMATICALLY changes that picture. This is why the RIAA finally focused in
on something intelligent and is doing something about it. Something that
FINALLY needs to be done.

If you still can't understand this, then you're simply clueless, probably
along with quite a few other things in life.

[Joel Whitburn, Jr.]

Post by Bat
Today however, 1:1 digital mp3 copies OF thousands of ENTIRE FUCKING
ALBUMS on highspeed bandwidth servers complete with 300 dpi scans of
all artwork DRAMATICALLY changes that picture. This is why the RIAA
finally focused in on something intelligent and is doing something
about it. Something that FINALLY needs to be done.

How is an mp3 a 1:1 digital copy? I was under the impression that mp3's
were a "lossy" format as the mp3 encoding process discards alot of the
music, in effect, rendering it as an imperfect copy...
Joel

[Bat]

Post by Joel Whitburn, Jr.

Post by Bat
Today however, 1:1 digital mp3 copies OF thousands of ENTIRE FUCKING
ALBUMS on highspeed bandwidth servers complete with 300 dpi scans of
all artwork DRAMATICALLY changes that picture. This is why the RIAA
finally focused in on something intelligent and is doing something
about it. Something that FINALLY needs to be done.

How is an mp3 a 1:1 digital copy? I was under the impression that mp3's
were a "lossy" format as the mp3 encoding process discards alot of the
music, in effect, rendering it as an imperfect copy...
Joel

not really to the human ear, even at 128K it's hard for a lot of people to
tell it's not a raw data file and at above that (160-320) it's impossible to
tell unless you have the right stereo and even then I'm doubtful anyone
would be able to tell. So at that level, yes, mp3's are not 1:1 (incomplete
thought on my part... compressed .wav/.aiff's are 1:1), but to the human
ear, 99% of the mp3's being traded out there are.

However again, this is an afterthought to the main problem. One is STILL not
allowed to act on behalf of a label or artist and augment the original work
in any way and then give it away. mp3, wav, aiff or whatever.

[Bill]

Post by Bat

Post by Joel Whitburn, Jr.
How is an mp3 a 1:1 digital copy? I was under the impression that mp3's
were a "lossy" format as the mp3 encoding process discards alot of the
music, in effect, rendering it as an imperfect copy...
Joel

not really to the human ear, even at 128K it's hard for a lot of people to
tell it's not a raw data file and at above that (160-320) it's impossible to
tell unless you have the right stereo and even then I'm doubtful anyone
would be able to tell. So at that level, yes, mp3's are not 1:1 (incomplete
thought on my part... compressed .wav/.aiff's are 1:1), but to the human
ear, 99% of the mp3's being traded out there are.

But the big difference between this and the cassette-sharing analogy
is that an infinite number of mp3 files can be cloned from the first,
and each of those can produce an infinite number of clones, and there
will be no subsequent degradation over that which occurred during the
initial creation of the compressed file.

[Bat]

Post by Bill

Post by Bat

Post by Joel Whitburn, Jr.
How is an mp3 a 1:1 digital copy? I was under the impression that mp3's
were a "lossy" format as the mp3 encoding process discards alot of the
music, in effect, rendering it as an imperfect copy...
Joel

not really to the human ear, even at 128K it's hard for a lot of people to
tell it's not a raw data file and at above that (160-320) it's impossible to
tell unless you have the right stereo and even then I'm doubtful anyone
would be able to tell. So at that level, yes, mp3's are not 1:1 (incomplete
thought on my part... compressed .wav/.aiff's are 1:1), but to the human
ear, 99% of the mp3's being traded out there are.

But the big difference between this and the cassette-sharing analogy
is that an infinite number of mp3 files can be cloned from the first,
and each of those can produce an infinite number of clones, and there
will be no subsequent degradation over that which occurred during the
initial creation of the compressed file.

True as well - Create an MP3 over 192K and you're hard pressed to
distinguish it from the original CD. The only way I could tell at one point
was not by sound quality but by low frequency alias artifacting that only I
KNEW due to it was my own song in the first place so I could A/B it. Along
with this aliasing came stereo image distortion.

HOWEVER, I soon realized how to re-encode that exact master using a
different stereo setting with some shareware software I downloaded and it
removed both problems and increased filesize by like 2-20K.... LOL - so yea,
it was then impossible to tell the two apart.

[DG]

Post by Bat
Allowing your own CD you paid for to be copied by others is illegal. It
always has been.

No. It can be fair use. The recording industry refuses to prosecute
anyone for this behavior. Probably because they don't want people to
know the reach of fair use.

[Roger Sherman]

Post by DG

Post by Bat
Allowing your own CD you paid for to be copied by others is illegal. It
always has been.

No. It can be fair use. The recording industry refuses to prosecute
anyone for this behavior. Probably because they don't want people to
know the reach of fair use.

Good god...now I have to deal with you here, too? ;-)

[Les Cargill]

Post by DG

Post by Bat
Allowing your own CD you paid for to be copied by others is illegal. It
always has been.

No. It can be fair use. The recording industry refuses to prosecute
anyone for this behavior. Probably because they don't want people to
know the reach of fair use.

There is one interpretation that says you can back up the CD for your own use.
You cannot distribute anything without violating copyright law.

--
Les Cargill

[DG]

Post by Les Cargill

Post by DG

Post by Bat
Allowing your own CD you paid for to be copied by others is illegal. It
always has been.

No. It can be fair use. The recording industry refuses to prosecute
anyone for this behavior. Probably because they don't want people to
know the reach of fair use.

There is one interpretation that says you can back up the CD for your own use.

Agreed.

Post by Les Cargill
You cannot distribute anything without violating copyright law.

Can you cite a case where someone was prosecuted for those actions?

[Les Cargill]

Post by DG

Post by Les Cargill

Post by DG

Post by Bat
Allowing your own CD you paid for to be copied by others is illegal. It
always has been.

No. It can be fair use. The recording industry refuses to prosecute
anyone for this behavior. Probably because they don't want people to
know the reach of fair use.

There is one interpretation that says you can back up the CD for your own use.

Agreed.

Post by Les Cargill
You cannot distribute anything without violating copyright law.

Can you cite a case where someone was prosecuted for those actions?

Other than the present file sharing suits?

--
Les Cargill

[DG]

Post by Les Cargill

Post by DG

Post by Les Cargill

Post by DG

Post by Bat
Allowing your own CD you paid for to be copied by others is illegal. It
always has been.

No. It can be fair use. The recording industry refuses to prosecute
anyone for this behavior. Probably because they don't want people to
know the reach of fair use.

There is one interpretation that says you can back up the CD for your own use.

Agreed.

Post by Les Cargill
You cannot distribute anything without violating copyright law.

Can you cite a case where someone was prosecuted for those actions?

Other than the present file sharing suits?

That is not the same as allowing a friend to copy a cd.

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

As DG <***@nospam.nospam> so eloquently put:
[] Les Cargill wrote:
[] >DG wrote:
[] >> >> >Allowing your own CD you paid for to be copied by others is illegal. It
[] >> >> >always has been.
[] >> >>
[] >> >> No. It can be fair use. The recording industry refuses to prosecute
[] >> >> anyone for this behavior. Probably because they don't want people to
[] >> >> know the reach of fair use.
[] >> >
[] >> >There is one interpretation that says you can back up the CD for your own use.
[] >>
[] >> Agreed.
[] >>
[] >> >You cannot distribute anything without violating copyright law.
[] >>
[] >> Can you cite a case where someone was prosecuted for those actions?
[] >
[] >Other than the present file sharing suits?
[]
[] That is not the same as allowing a friend to copy a cd.

That only proves that they're not prosecuting small game, not that
such sharing qualifies as fair use or that you're not violating
copyright law.

But when the day comes that I can't make rip CDs to my own media
computer, I'm gonna be one pissed off consumer.

Chris

--
"And BTW, I'm the best accordeon player in rmmg."
-- Den Slatnay
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

[DG]

Post by Not A Speck Of Cereal
[] >> >> >Allowing your own CD you paid for to be copied by others is illegal. It
[] >> >> >always has been.
[] >> >>
[] >> >> No. It can be fair use. The recording industry refuses to prosecute
[] >> >> anyone for this behavior. Probably because they don't want people to
[] >> >> know the reach of fair use.
[] >> >
[] >> >There is one interpretation that says you can back up the CD for your own use.
[] >>
[] >> Agreed.
[] >>
[] >> >You cannot distribute anything without violating copyright law.
[] >>
[] >> Can you cite a case where someone was prosecuted for those actions?
[] >
[] >Other than the present file sharing suits?
[]
[] That is not the same as allowing a friend to copy a cd.
That only proves that they're not prosecuting small game, not that
such sharing qualifies as fair use or that you're not violating
copyright law.

If you are not going to be prosecuted then what is the difference?

If someone is prosecuted then fair use would obviously be discussed
and the legal status of those actions would be determined at that
time.

[Les Cargill]

Post by DG

Post by Not A Speck Of Cereal
[] >> >> >Allowing your own CD you paid for to be copied by others is illegal. It
[] >> >> >always has been.
[] >> >>
[] >> >> No. It can be fair use. The recording industry refuses to prosecute
[] >> >> anyone for this behavior. Probably because they don't want people to
[] >> >> know the reach of fair use.
[] >> >
[] >> >There is one interpretation that says you can back up the CD for your own use.
[] >>
[] >> Agreed.
[] >>
[] >> >You cannot distribute anything without violating copyright law.
[] >>
[] >> Can you cite a case where someone was prosecuted for those actions?
[] >
[] >Other than the present file sharing suits?
[]
[] That is not the same as allowing a friend to copy a cd.
That only proves that they're not prosecuting small game, not that
such sharing qualifies as fair use or that you're not violating
copyright law.

If you are not going to be prosecuted then what is the difference?
If someone is prosecuted then fair use would obviously be discussed
and the legal status of those actions would be determined at that
time.

I forgot. The is America. The only crime is gettin' caught :)

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

Post by Not A Speck Of Cereal
[] >> >> >Allowing your own CD you paid for to be copied by others is illegal. It
[] >> >> >always has been.
[] >> >>
[] >> >> No. It can be fair use. The recording industry refuses to prosecute
[] >> >> anyone for this behavior. Probably because they don't want people to
[] >> >> know the reach of fair use.
[] >> >
[] >> >There is one interpretation that says you can back up the CD for your own use.
[] >>
[] >> Agreed.
[] >>
[] >> >You cannot distribute anything without violating copyright law.
[] >>
[] >> Can you cite a case where someone was prosecuted for those actions?
[] >
[] >Other than the present file sharing suits?
[]
[] That is not the same as allowing a friend to copy a cd.
That only proves that they're not prosecuting small game, not that
such sharing qualifies as fair use or that you're not violating
copyright law.
But when the day comes that I can't make rip CDs to my own media
computer, I'm gonna be one pissed off consumer.

Got ADC?

Post by Not A Speck Of Cereal
Chris
--
"And BTW, I'm the best accordeon player in rmmg."
-- Den Slatnay
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

--
Les Cargill

[Bat]

Post by DG

Post by Les Cargill

Post by DG

Post by Les Cargill

Post by DG

Post by Bat
Allowing your own CD you paid for to be copied by others is illegal. It
always has been.

No. It can be fair use. The recording industry refuses to prosecute
anyone for this behavior. Probably because they don't want people to
know the reach of fair use.

There is one interpretation that says you can back up the CD for your own use.

Agreed.

Post by Les Cargill
You cannot distribute anything without violating copyright law.

Can you cite a case where someone was prosecuted for those actions?

Other than the present file sharing suits?

That is not the same as allowing a friend to copy a cd.

Hate to say it but yes it is. The only reason you don't read about anyone
getting popped is for the same reason 99 out of 100 cops won't site you for
stepping off a curb on a red light or J-Walking where it's illegal. If you
can't understand that then this conversation is over.

[DG]

Post by John P.

Post by DG

Post by Les Cargill

Post by DG

Post by Les Cargill

Post by DG

Post by Bat
Allowing your own CD you paid for to be copied by others is

illegal. It

Post by DG

Post by Les Cargill

Post by DG

Post by Les Cargill

Post by DG

Post by Bat
always has been.

No. It can be fair use. The recording industry refuses to

prosecute

Post by DG

Post by Les Cargill

Post by DG

Post by Les Cargill

Post by DG
anyone for this behavior. Probably because they don't want people

to

Post by DG

Post by Les Cargill

Post by DG

Post by Les Cargill

Post by DG
know the reach of fair use.

There is one interpretation that says you can back up the CD for your

own use.

Post by DG

Post by Les Cargill

Post by DG
Agreed.

Post by Les Cargill
You cannot distribute anything without violating copyright law.

Can you cite a case where someone was prosecuted for those actions?

Other than the present file sharing suits?

That is not the same as allowing a friend to copy a cd.

Hate to say it but yes it is.

LOL...

Post by John P.
The only reason you don't read about anyone
getting popped is for the same reason 99 out of 100 cops won't site you for
stepping off a curb on a red light or J-Walking where it's illegal. If you
can't understand that then this conversation is over.

If you aren't going to be prosecuted then why worry?

[Ron Thompson]

Post by Bat

Post by DG
That is not the same as allowing a friend to copy a cd.

Hate to say it but yes it is. The only reason you don't read about anyone
getting popped is for the same reason 99 out of 100 cops won't site you for
stepping off a curb on a red light or J-Walking where it's illegal. If you
can't understand that then this conversation is over.

Truth. The law itself is not arbitrary, however, and this is really
important: the enforcement of the law is/can/may be arbitrary. This
arbitrariness does not exonerate one from the law. If you did 55 in a 45
and did not get a ticket, you can not use that as defense for getting a
ticket doing 50 in the same place.
--
rct
The opinions above are mine and mine alone.

[Les Cargill]

Post by DG

Post by Les Cargill

Post by DG

Post by Les Cargill

Post by DG

Post by Bat
Allowing your own CD you paid for to be copied by others is illegal. It
always has been.

No. It can be fair use. The recording industry refuses to prosecute
anyone for this behavior. Probably because they don't want people to
know the reach of fair use.

There is one interpretation that says you can back up the CD for your own use.

Agreed.

Post by Les Cargill
You cannot distribute anything without violating copyright law.

Can you cite a case where someone was prosecuted for those actions?

Other than the present file sharing suits?

That is not the same as allowing a friend to copy a cd.

It is precisely that same thing. It is unauthorized distribution of a
work which is subject to copyright, without permission/clearance.

--
Les Cargill

[Bill]

Post by DG

Post by Bat
Allowing your own CD you paid for to be copied by others is illegal. It
always has been.

No. It can be fair use. The recording industry refuses to prosecute
anyone for this behavior. Probably because they don't want people to
know the reach of fair use.

Well, you piqued my curiousity -- how is making a copy of a CD "fair
use"?

[Dan Stanley]

Post by Bill

Post by DG

Post by Bat
Allowing your own CD you paid for to be copied by others is illegal. It
always has been.

No. It can be fair use. The recording industry refuses to prosecute
anyone for this behavior. Probably because they don't want people to
know the reach of fair use.

Well, you piqued my curiousity -- how is making a copy of a CD "fair
use"?

As a back-up, in case the one you bought is stolen or becomes damaged.

Also, I believe it also considered fair use to make, for example, a cassette
copy of your LP to play in your car* or wherever.

Ripping a copy to your hard drive is probably fair use, as long as it is
only for YOU. Ripping a copy, and making it available to the whole world via
Napster ( or whatever) is NOT fair use, at least not if you do it without
the copyright holder's permission.

Dan

*Yeah, in the olden days, we didn't HAVE CD players. At all. Especially in
the car.

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

As "Dan Stanley" <***@verizon.net> so eloquently put:
[] "Bill" <***@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in message
[...]
[] > Well, you piqued my curiousity -- how is making a copy of a CD "fair
[] > use"?
[]
[] As a back-up, in case the one you bought is stolen or becomes damaged.
[]
[] Also, I believe it also considered fair use to make, for example, a cassette
[] copy of your LP to play in your car* or wherever.

Or rip your purchased CD to the MP3 player that you use in your car,
the bus, the vacation, what have you.

Chris

--
"And BTW, I'm the best accordeon player in rmmg."
-- Den Slatnay
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

[Bat]

Post by Not A Speck Of Cereal
[...]
[] > Well, you piqued my curiousity -- how is making a copy of a CD "fair
[] > use"?
[]
[] As a back-up, in case the one you bought is stolen or becomes damaged.
[]
[] Also, I believe it also considered fair use to make, for example, a cassette
[] copy of your LP to play in your car* or wherever.
Or rip your purchased CD to the MP3 player that you use in your car,
the bus, the vacation, what have you.
Chris

This is not the issue here. When you buy a CD, yes, you are entitled to
backing up your data however you see fit.

The issue here is acting like a distributer and giving it to someone else
via internet, cd copy, etc... remember, the thread here is about the RIAA...
:-)

[Bill]

Post by Dan Stanley

Post by Bill

Post by DG

Post by Bat
Allowing your own CD you paid for to be copied by others is illegal. It
always has been.

No. It can be fair use. The recording industry refuses to prosecute
anyone for this behavior. Probably because they don't want people to
know the reach of fair use.

Well, you piqued my curiousity -- how is making a copy of a CD "fair
use"?

As a back-up, in case the one you bought is stolen or becomes damaged.
Also, I believe it also considered fair use to make, for example, a cassette
copy of your LP to play in your car* or wherever.

Ah, okay, I was reading "CD you paid for to be copied by others" as
meaning that the "other" who copied it was keeping the copy.

[DG]

Post by Bill

Post by DG

Post by Bat
Allowing your own CD you paid for to be copied by others is illegal. It
always has been.

No. It can be fair use. The recording industry refuses to prosecute
anyone for this behavior. Probably because they don't want people to
know the reach of fair use.

Well, you piqued my curiousity -- how is making a copy of a CD "fair
use"?

Fair use would be the defense if there was ever a court case. AFAIK,
nobody has ever been charged with copying a friend's CD. If it's not
illegal, then it would be fair use.

The copyright dependent industries seem to want fair use to remain a
mystery. During the mp3 hoopla on capital hill, Leahy asked Rosen to
clarify fair use for this exact issue. She avoided it.

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

As DG <***@nospam.nospam> so eloquently put:
[] Bill wrote:
[] >>Bat wrote:
[] >>>
[] >>>Allowing your own CD you paid for to be copied by others is illegal. It
[] >>>always has been.
[] >>
[] >>No. It can be fair use. The recording industry refuses to prosecute
[] >>anyone for this behavior. Probably because they don't want people to
[] >>know the reach of fair use.
[] >
[] >Well, you piqued my curiousity -- how is making a copy of a CD "fair
[] >use"?
[]
[] Fair use would be the defense if there was ever a court case. AFAIK,
[] nobody has ever been charged with copying a friend's CD. If it's not
[] illegal, then it would be fair use.

Naw, the fair use act is pretty specific. It's law. Make your own
copies for your own personal use, it's all protected. The idea that
your friend copying your CD is somehow not illegal because you're not
prosecuted is fallacious.

[] The copyright dependent industries seem to want fair use to remain a
[] mystery.

Really? It was all spelled out during the era of the cassette, for
audio and video. Over and done with. A coupl'a decades ago. No mystery
here.

[] During the mp3 hoopla on capital hill, Leahy asked Rosen to
[] clarify fair use for this exact issue. She avoided it.

It proves that she's not well versed or not a good public speaker,
nothing more.

Chris

--
"And BTW, I'm the best accordeon player in rmmg."
-- Den Slatnay
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

[Bill]

Post by DG

Post by Bill

Post by DG

Post by Bat
Allowing your own CD you paid for to be copied by others is illegal. It
always has been.

No. It can be fair use. The recording industry refuses to prosecute
anyone for this behavior. Probably because they don't want people to
know the reach of fair use.

Well, you piqued my curiousity -- how is making a copy of a CD "fair
use"?

Fair use would be the defense if there was ever a court case. AFAIK,
nobody has ever been charged with copying a friend's CD. If it's not
illegal, then it would be fair use.
The copyright dependent industries seem to want fair use to remain a
mystery.

Sounds like a pretty tough job, considering that the law is a matter
of public record.

[DG]

Post by Bill

Post by DG

Post by Bill

Post by DG

Post by Bat
Allowing your own CD you paid for to be copied by others is illegal. It
always has been.

No. It can be fair use. The recording industry refuses to prosecute
anyone for this behavior. Probably because they don't want people to
know the reach of fair use.

Well, you piqued my curiousity -- how is making a copy of a CD "fair
use"?

Fair use would be the defense if there was ever a court case. AFAIK,
nobody has ever been charged with copying a friend's CD. If it's not
illegal, then it would be fair use.
The copyright dependent industries seem to want fair use to remain a
mystery.

Sounds like a pretty tough job, considering that the law is a matter
of public record.

A law that has not been clarified for the the situation we are
discussing.

[Bat]

Post by DG

Post by Bat
Allowing your own CD you paid for to be copied by others is illegal. It
always has been.

No. It can be fair use. The recording industry refuses to prosecute
anyone for this behavior. Probably because they don't want people to
know the reach of fair use.

Wrong-o buddy. Fair use is NOT covered when you copy a CD for another
person.
If you're trying to use "Fair Use" as an arguement for filesharing or giving
someone a copy of a CD, then I hope you have a lot of bail money as if you
are planning on using that for a defense, you're screwed.

Post by DG
Criticism and comment -- for example, quoting or excerpting a work in a

review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment.

Post by DG
News reporting -- for example, summarizing an address or article, with

brief quotations, in a news report.

Post by DG
Research and scholarship -- for example, quoting a short passage in a

scholarly, scientific, or technical work for illustration or clarification
of the >author's observations.

Post by DG
Nonprofit educational uses -- for example, photocopying of limited

portions of written works by teachers for classroom use.

Post by DG
Parody -- that is, a work that ridicules another, usually well-known,

work by imitating it in a comic way.

Post by DG
In most other situations, copying is not legally a fair use. Without an

author's permission, such a use violates the author's copyright.

As you can see, NONE of the above cover copying a CD and giving it to your
friend of ALLOWING it to be shared for open season on your internet
connection.

[DG]

Post by Bat

Post by DG

Post by Bat
Allowing your own CD you paid for to be copied by others is illegal. It
always has been.

No. It can be fair use. The recording industry refuses to prosecute
anyone for this behavior. Probably because they don't want people to
know the reach of fair use.

Wrong-o buddy. Fair use is NOT covered when you copy a CD for another
person.

The question was about when a friend copies your CD.

Post by Bat
If you're trying to use "Fair Use" as an arguement for filesharing or giving
someone a copy of a CD, then I hope you have a lot of bail money as if you
are planning on using that for a defense, you're screwed.

How many people do you know that have been prosecuted for allowing a
friend to copy a CD?

Post by Bat

Post by DG
Criticism and comment -- for example, quoting or excerpting a work in a

review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment.

Post by DG
News reporting -- for example, summarizing an address or article, with

brief quotations, in a news report.

Post by DG
Research and scholarship -- for example, quoting a short passage in a

scholarly, scientific, or technical work for illustration or clarification
of the >author's observations.

Post by DG
Nonprofit educational uses -- for example, photocopying of limited

portions of written works by teachers for classroom use.

Post by DG
Parody -- that is, a work that ridicules another, usually well-known,

work by imitating it in a comic way.

Post by DG
In most other situations, copying is not legally a fair use. Without an

author's permission, such a use violates the author's copyright.
As you can see, NONE of the above cover copying a CD and giving it to your
friend of ALLOWING it to be shared for open season on your internet
connection.

Where is this citation of fair use from?

What cases support this definition of fair use?

[Twang]

Post by Bat

Post by DG

Post by Bat
Allowing your own CD you paid for to be copied by others is illegal. It
always has been.

No. It can be fair use. The recording industry refuses to prosecute
anyone for this behavior. Probably because they don't want people to
know the reach of fair use.

Wrong-o buddy. Fair use is NOT covered when you copy a CD for another
person.
If you're trying to use "Fair Use" as an arguement for filesharing or giving
someone a copy of a CD, then I hope you have a lot of bail money as if you
are planning on using that for a defense, you're screwed.

Post by DG
Criticism and comment -- for example, quoting or excerpting a work in a

review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment.

Post by DG
News reporting -- for example, summarizing an address or article, with

brief quotations, in a news report.

Post by DG
Research and scholarship -- for example, quoting a short passage in a

scholarly, scientific, or technical work for illustration or clarification
of the >author's observations.

Post by DG
Nonprofit educational uses -- for example, photocopying of limited

portions of written works by teachers for classroom use.

Post by DG
Parody -- that is, a work that ridicules another, usually well-known,

work by imitating it in a comic way.

Post by DG
In most other situations, copying is not legally a fair use. Without an

author's permission, such a use violates the author's copyright.
As you can see, NONE of the above cover copying a CD and giving it to your
friend of ALLOWING it to be shared for open season on your internet
connection.

don't you think that sucks?
can you loan someone your blender?
after all it's patented.

next thing you know they'll try to take down OLGA.

Twang!



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: 09/29/2003

[John P.]

Post by Bat
Wrong-o buddy. Fair use is NOT covered when you copy a CD for another
person. If you're trying to use "Fair Use" as an arguement for filesharing

or giving

Post by Bat
someone a copy of a CD, then I hope you have a lot of bail money as if you
are planning on using that for a defense, you're screwed.

I was ready to agree with you, when I recalled something in the back of my
mind. It seems I recall something I read somewhere long ago where the issue
of a consumer copying a single (at the time) Cassette and giving that to a
friend was deemed to be "ok" legally (under fair use or some other point of
law).

I tried to Google something for you as a reference, and came up with this;

"The law is more complicated for sharing music with someone else. Under the
copyright "first sale" doctrine, codified in section 109 of the Copyright
Act, it's ok for you to loan, or sell a CD that you have bought to a friend,
so long as you don't keep a copy (that is, so long as there's only one copy
at any time). However, burning a copy of a CD to give to a friend is more
complicated. First, it may involve a violation of the copyright owner's
exclusive right of reproduction and therefore be copyright infringement.
However, some lawyers argue that copies of songs made under the AHRA with
AHRA-compliant devices (such as mini-disc players, stand-alone audio CD
recorders and DAT recorders) can be lawfully shared under the first sale
doctrine.

Making a mix CD also involves copying of songs. Some lawyers argue that
making a mix CD for your personal use, with songs that you already own on
audio CD, is fair use, for the same reasons as above. Copying a couple of
tracks for a mix CD for a friend might also be considered fair use, or
copyright infringement, depending on all the facts."

As you can see, this paragraph doesn't point to a specific decision, but
rather merely indicates that in some instances, making a copy for a friend
MAY be OK.

The case I recall dealt specifically with analog copies. The DMCA may have a
different impact on CD copies.

If I manage to find an exact reference, I'll point you two it. For now, I
think it would suffice to say that fair use is not a clear line and that one
is fairly safe (legally) if the use is non-commercial and very limited (i.e.
one copy for one friend vs. thousands of copies that you sell for profit)

[John P.]

Post by Bat
Wow - how retarded are you?

Retarded enough to not argue with those whom agree with me?

Post by Bat
Allowing your own CD you paid for to be copied by others is illegal. It
always has been.

Yup. It's called copyright violation.
It's not called stealing.

<much snipped>

Post by Bat
If you still can't understand this, then you're simply clueless, probably
along with quite a few other things in life.

I do understand this, and have always agreed with these points, and have
never argued against them. Would one arguing against me by pointing out
positions with which I agree be retarded, clueless or both? Just wondering
where you fit in here.

[Neil Krueger]

Post by John P.

Post by Ed Cregger
Everyone knows that two wrongs do not make a right. It is simplistic, but
true. Stealing is stealing, period.

I think it is overly simplistic to say stealing is stealing, period. Even
something as extreme as killing someone is not so black and white (Murder,
Manslaughter, Justifiable homicide, Self defense, etc.). Every area of law
has shades of black and white and gray.
Stealing leans more towards depriving another of their property. Copyright
violations do no such thing. Yes, copyright violations ARE illegal, but they
are not stealing.

Copyright violations DO deprive another of their property--they deprive
artists of the profit from the distribution of their art. That is a direct
economic consequence of the act, virtually indistinguishable from stealing.

Peace,
Neil X.

[Ed Cregger]

Copyright violations deprives the artists of their income. THAT is stealing.

Ed Cregger

Post by John P.

Post by Ed Cregger
Everyone knows that two wrongs do not make a right. It is simplistic, but
true. Stealing is stealing, period.

I think it is overly simplistic to say stealing is stealing, period. Even
something as extreme as killing someone is not so black and white (Murder,
Manslaughter, Justifiable homicide, Self defense, etc.). Every area of law
has shades of black and white and gray.
Stealing leans more towards depriving another of their property. Copyright
violations do no such thing. Yes, copyright violations ARE illegal, but they
are not stealing.

[John P.]

Post by Ed Cregger
Copyright violations deprives the artists of their income. THAT is stealing.

Why can't we just leave it that a copyright violation is illegal? Why bust
your nuts to call it something else? Your example is a very gray area. If
someone downloads a song that they would NEVER buy, then the artist is not
deprived of income. Thus, no stealing.

When you drive down the street and don't speed, a cop can't give you a
ticket. The county is deprived of the money they would have gotten if you
had been speeding. Is driving the speed limit stealing?

It's a copyright violation. It is illegal. It is enough to call it that.

[Bat]

Post by John P.

Post by Ed Cregger
Copyright violations deprives the artists of their income. THAT is

stealing.
Why can't we just leave it that a copyright violation is illegal? Why bust
your nuts to call it something else? Your example is a very gray area. If
someone downloads a song that they would NEVER buy, then the artist is not
deprived of income. Thus, no stealing.

Wrong. Why did you download it in the first place? Go take your ass into
Tower Records and take a CD of an artist you would never listen to HOME
(downloading). Tell me that's not stealing.

Now if you listened to it on an inhouse Ipod or similar delivery station,
then yes, it's not stealing - but it's on shitty nappy ass 200hz-10Khz
headphones that 1000 other lice infested people have worn before you. Yummy.
But you still listen.

That's what the RIAA is trying to do and it's what I DID DO years ago with
cyberden.com when it was a site for music labels & bands in the
industrial/gothic music scene (Astralwerks, Cleopatra, COP International,
21st Circuitry and many others). I offered samples from songs in decent
quality you could download that were 60 second snipets and not CD quality.
Enough to freely give and decide if you should buy the CD.

Unfortunately the internet being a new technology gave way to the same
problem any new giant technology goes through. Holes. Abusement. Rape.
etc... This is simple to understand. People simply dropped back to the
lowest human common denominator - steal it (guily) and share it (absolve
guilt?)! It's impossible to catch me! Well it WAS impossible but now it's
POSSIBLE and since it's been proven over the past 10+ years that such
activity DOES HURT record sales, the RIAA is finally trying to do something
focused and intelligent about it. I applaud that.

Post by John P.
When you drive down the street and don't speed, a cop can't give you a
ticket. The county is deprived of the money they would have gotten if you
had been speeding. Is driving the speed limit stealing?

What are you 13??? You need to go back to the school of life.

[Drew]

Post by Bat

Post by John P.
Why can't we just leave it that a copyright violation is illegal? Why bust
your nuts to call it something else? Your example is a very gray area. If
someone downloads a song that they would NEVER buy, then the artist is not
deprived of income. Thus, no stealing.

Wrong. Why did you download it in the first place? Go take your ass into
Tower Records and take a CD of an artist you would never listen to HOME
(downloading). Tell me that's not stealing.

Your oh-so-passionate tone is pretty amusing considering that you
display no understanding of even the most basic legal issues (as has
been, quite politely I might add) pointed out to you several times.
Since you're so personally interested, why don't you read a little bit
about US copyright law? For a condensed introduction, try:

http://www.rbs2.com/copyr.htm#anchor111111

In any case, somebody who samples a copyrighted track and re-uses some
modified part of it in a 'derivative' work is also guilty of copyright
violation. Certain preachy electronic artists just might want to think
twice before tooting the horn of copyright law.

Drew

[Bat]

Post by Drew

Post by Bat

Post by John P.
Why can't we just leave it that a copyright violation is illegal? Why bust
your nuts to call it something else? Your example is a very gray area. If
someone downloads a song that they would NEVER buy, then the artist is not
deprived of income. Thus, no stealing.

Wrong. Why did you download it in the first place? Go take your ass into
Tower Records and take a CD of an artist you would never listen to HOME
(downloading). Tell me that's not stealing.

Your oh-so-passionate tone is pretty amusing considering that you
display no understanding of even the most basic legal issues (as has
been, quite politely I might add) pointed out to you several times.
Since you're so personally interested, why don't you read a little bit

Been there done that and believe me or not (I could care less), I know more
about copyright law then you could ever fathom.

[John P.]

Post by Bat
Wrong. Why did you download it in the first place? Go take your ass into
Tower Records and take a CD of an artist you would never listen to HOME
(downloading). Tell me that's not stealing.

Taking a CD physically from a retail store is stealing. Downloading a copy
of that song is a copyright violation. This ain't rocket science.

[Bat]

Post by John P.

Post by Bat
Wrong. Why did you download it in the first place? Go take your ass into
Tower Records and take a CD of an artist you would never listen to HOME
(downloading). Tell me that's not stealing.

Taking a CD physically from a retail store is stealing. Downloading a copy
of that song is a copyright violation. This ain't rocket science.

Make the connection. I know you have some iota of intelligence.

[John P.]

Post by Bat
Make the connection. I know you have some iota of intelligence.

Your next comment should be "Dammit! We agree!".
The connection I am failing to make is why you feel the need to argue with
me.

Here's a multiple choice question;

A person suspected of an illegal copyright violation can be arrested and
charged with;
A) Burglary
B) Theft
C) Violation of Copyright laws

If you guessed C, you are correct.

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

As "John P." <***@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> so eloquently put:
[] "Bat" <***@cyberden.com> wrote in a message
[]
[] > Wrong. Why did you download it in the first place? Go take your ass into
[] > Tower Records and take a CD of an artist you would never listen to HOME
[] > (downloading). Tell me that's not stealing.
[]
[] Taking a CD physically from a retail store is stealing. Downloading a copy
[] of that song is a copyright violation. This ain't rocket science.

Dude, if you're comfortable with the concept that copyright violation
is not theft, somehow, then I'd like share what you're smokin'.

Chris

--
"And BTW, I'm the best accordeon player in rmmg."
-- Den Slatnay
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

[DG]

Post by Not A Speck Of Cereal
[]
[] > Wrong. Why did you download it in the first place? Go take your ass into
[] > Tower Records and take a CD of an artist you would never listen to HOME
[] > (downloading). Tell me that's not stealing.
[]
[] Taking a CD physically from a retail store is stealing. Downloading a copy
[] of that song is a copyright violation. This ain't rocket science.
Dude, if you're comfortable with the concept that copyright violation
is not theft, somehow, then I'd like share what you're smokin'.

So is using a paper copy machine theft?

If yes, do you walk to the other side of the street to avoid the
untouchables who enter Kinko's?

To me, the current situation with regards to music sharing is a result
of the music industry's price fixing. People have been gouged/ripped
off for so long they no longer respect the industry. Suing people
will not convince them to buy your product.

"83 percent of teenagers polled said it was morally acceptable to
download music from the Internet for free."
http://www.concordmonitor.com/stories/crime/2003/100103downloading_arg_2003.shtml

The copyright dependent industries should provide better product
because they are fighting a losing battle.

[Jeffraham Prestonian]

Speaking of ripping and being ripped, has anyone here
received their check from the Big Five's settlement on
the price-fixing class action suit?

[yachtboy!]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 01:58:37 -0500, "Jeffraham Prestonian"

Post by Jeffraham Prestonian
Speaking of ripping and being ripped, has anyone here
received their check from the Big Five's settlement on
the price-fixing class action suit?
--
Toucan
Be heard. Spread the word.
http://www.YouSaidit.org
An experiment in hypermedia Democracy

I was just thinking about that.
And wondering if it would ever be sent.
I have a funny feeling they think that the new price structure is penalty
enough....
==========
"Being diabetic is alot like having an un-invited
guest at a picnic, who keeps pointing out the potato
salad may have gone bad."--W.B. Willis

"Destiny has a strange sense of humor..." K. Honeycutt
----------
http://www.geocities.com/swl_yb400pe
http://www.geocities.com/swl_yb400pe/psychedelic.htm
http://www.geocities.com/swl_yb400pe/slinkypage.html

"He not busy being born is busy dying..." B. Dylan


=======================

[Jeffraham Prestonian]

Post by yachtboy!
I was just thinking about that.
And wondering if it would ever be sent.

Seems like there was news back in the summer that the
settlement had been agreed upon, and checks were going
to be cut (it worked out to just over $10/ea. claimant, if I
recall). I filed a claim, and no check yet. I just wanted to
hear from others on it... there was some discussion about
it here, so I'm assuming there are others here who also
filed a claim.

Post by yachtboy!
I have a funny feeling they think that the new price structure is penalty
enough....

I'm sure the court will disagree, if that's their intent. :)

[Garry Bryan]

In rec.music.gdead Jeffraham Prestonian <***@mailblocks.com> wrote:
: Speaking of ripping and being ripped, has anyone here
: received their check from the Big Five's settlement on
: the price-fixing class action suit?

I was thinking about that the other day as well. . .I can't recall if I did
get that fat $20 check or not. . .seems I recall a smaller amount, like $15, but
since I didn't make it a celebration, it slipped my mind. . .

Garry

www.leftycomics.com

[Jeffraham Prestonian]

Post by Garry Bryan
I was thinking about that the other day as well. . .I can't recall if I did
get that fat $20 check or not. . .seems I recall a smaller amount, like $15, but
since I didn't make it a celebration, it slipped my mind. . .

It should be less than $20, actually. Anyway, I found
out that no checks have been cut -- the appeals process
is underway. This URL explains:

http://www.komotv.com/stories/26836.htm

[Ron Thompson]

Post by DG
"83 percent of teenagers polled said it was morally acceptable to
download music from the Internet for free."

Ojeez. This is just great. What a future we have. Maybe I should tell you
sometime what 83 percent of the teenagers thought was morally acceptable
when I was a kid. Yikes.

Post by DG
The copyright dependent industries should provide better product
because they are fighting a losing battle.

The automotive industry should provide better product because when The
People start stealing cars from the lot they will be fighting a losing
battle.

I know, bad analogy.

Heres one: Go record something, make enough to pay the electric bill off of
it. Don't worry about the illegal distribution of your work without
compensation to you, because 83% of the teenagers think it is morally
acceptable. And by the way, don't give up that Drive Through Management
position, you will need it to make payments on the Tiburon.
--
rct
The opinions above are mine and mine alone.

[Les Cargill]

Post by Ron Thompson

Post by DG
"83 percent of teenagers polled said it was morally acceptable to
download music from the Internet for free."

Ojeez. This is just great. What a future we have. Maybe I should tell you
sometime what 83 percent of the teenagers thought was morally acceptable
when I was a kid. Yikes.

Post by DG
The copyright dependent industries should provide better product
because they are fighting a losing battle.

The automotive industry should provide better product because when The
People start stealing cars from the lot they will be fighting a losing
battle.
I know, bad analogy.
Heres one: Go record something, make enough to pay the electric bill off of
it.

HAHAHA! This only works if your electricity needs can be met by
two (2) Wally World(TM) non-alkaline 9V batteries.

Post by Ron Thompson
Don't worry about the illegal distribution of your work without
compensation to you, because 83% of the teenagers think it is morally
acceptable.

Music should be free, man.

Post by Ron Thompson
And by the way, don't give up that Drive Through Management
position, you will need it to make payments on the Tiburon.
--
rct
The opinions above are mine and mine alone.

--
Les Cargill

[Dan Stanley]

Post by DG

Post by Not A Speck Of Cereal
[]
[] > Wrong. Why did you download it in the first place? Go take your ass into
[] > Tower Records and take a CD of an artist you would never listen to HOME
[] > (downloading). Tell me that's not stealing.
[]
[] Taking a CD physically from a retail store is stealing. Downloading a copy
[] of that song is a copyright violation. This ain't rocket science.
Dude, if you're comfortable with the concept that copyright violation
is not theft, somehow, then I'd like share what you're smokin'.

So is using a paper copy machine theft?

If you are using the machine to copy copyrighted material for distribution,
yup.
You are allowed to make copies for personal and educational purposes, but if
you go and photocopy Time magazine, and sell or give the copies away, you're
doing something illegal.

I think there is even a law about how much of a work you can copy for
educational purposes. Either a number of pages from any text, or some
percentage of the text. I don't recall, but I'm certain it exists.

Professors have been popped for making photocopies of articles in feild
journals to distrubute to classes, for example.

Post by DG
If yes, do you walk to the other side of the street to avoid the
untouchables who enter Kinko's?

Go and ask Kinko's to make a hundred copies of this weeks Time magazine, see
what they say.

Post by DG
To me, the current situation with regards to music sharing is a result
of the music industry's price fixing. People have been gouged/ripped
off for so long they no longer respect the industry. Suing people
will not convince them to buy your product.
"83 percent of teenagers polled said it was morally acceptable to
download music from the Internet for free."

http://www.concordmonitor.com/stories/crime/2003/100103downloading_arg_2003.
shtml

I get ALL my moral advice from teenagers, you bet. When in doubt, ask a
teenager, that's what I say.

Post by DG
The copyright dependent industries should provide better product
because they are fighting a losing battle.

So you think teenagers would suggest that if the product were better, they
wouldn't steal it? Yes, it all becomes clear now...

Dan

[DG]

Post by Dan Stanley

Post by DG

Post by Not A Speck Of Cereal
[]
[] > Wrong. Why did you download it in the first place? Go take your ass

into

Post by DG

Post by Not A Speck Of Cereal
[] > Tower Records and take a CD of an artist you would never listen to

HOME

Post by DG

Post by Not A Speck Of Cereal
[] > (downloading). Tell me that's not stealing.
[]
[] Taking a CD physically from a retail store is stealing. Downloading a

copy

Post by DG

Post by Not A Speck Of Cereal
[] of that song is a copyright violation. This ain't rocket science.
Dude, if you're comfortable with the concept that copyright violation
is not theft, somehow, then I'd like share what you're smokin'.

So is using a paper copy machine theft?

If you are using the machine to copy copyrighted material for distribution,
yup.
You are allowed to make copies for personal and educational purposes, but if
you go and photocopy Time magazine, and sell or give the copies away, you're
doing something illegal.
I think there is even a law about how much of a work you can copy for
educational purposes. Either a number of pages from any text, or some
percentage of the text. I don't recall, but I'm certain it exists.
Professors have been popped for making photocopies of articles in feild
journals to distrubute to classes, for example.

Post by DG
If yes, do you walk to the other side of the street to avoid the
untouchables who enter Kinko's?

Go and ask Kinko's to make a hundred copies of this weeks Time magazine, see
what they say.

Post by DG
To me, the current situation with regards to music sharing is a result
of the music industry's price fixing. People have been gouged/ripped
off for so long they no longer respect the industry. Suing people
will not convince them to buy your product.
"83 percent of teenagers polled said it was morally acceptable to
download music from the Internet for free."

http://www.concordmonitor.com/stories/crime/2003/100103downloading_arg_2003.
shtml
I get ALL my moral advice from teenagers, you bet. When in doubt, ask a
teenager, that's what I say.

Given the fact that they feel this way, the recording industry should
realize that they are pissing into the wind. File sharing is here to
stay.

Post by Dan Stanley

Post by DG
The copyright dependent industries should provide better product
because they are fighting a losing battle.

So you think teenagers would suggest that if the product were better, they
wouldn't steal it? Yes, it all becomes clear now...

When a friend comes over your place and asks to borrow a cd, do you
lecture them on your morality and/or let them borrow it?

[Dan Stanley]

Post by DG

Post by Dan Stanley

Post by DG
"83 percent of teenagers polled said it was morally acceptable to
download music from the Internet for free."

http://www.concordmonitor.com/stories/crime/2003/100103downloading_arg_2003

.

Post by DG

Post by Dan Stanley
shtml
I get ALL my moral advice from teenagers, you bet. When in doubt, ask a
teenager, that's what I say.

Given the fact that they feel this way, the recording industry should
realize that they are pissing into the wind. File sharing is here to
stay.

Post by Dan Stanley

Post by DG
The copyright dependent industries should provide better product
because they are fighting a losing battle.

So you think teenagers would suggest that if the product were better, they
wouldn't steal it? Yes, it all becomes clear now...

When a friend comes over your place and asks to borrow a cd, do you
lecture them on your morality and/or let them borrow it?

Let 'em borrow it. No worries. Do it all the time, as a matter of fact.
BUT
I don't let MILLIONS of people I don't even know borrow it, copy it, and
share it with THEIR friends (unless of course, the artist in question says,
"Go ahead"). Yeah, if a million folks all descended upon my little yurt in
the wilderness, wanting to copy a CD , I'd probably give 'em a lecture.

Do you see the difference?

Dan

[Garry Bryan]

In rec.music.gdead Dan Stanley <***@verizon.net> wrote:

: "DG" <***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
: news:***@4ax.com...
:> Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote:
:> >
:> >As "John P." so eloquently put:
:> >[] "Bat" <***@cyberden.com> wrote in a message
:> >[]
:> >[] > Wrong. Why did you download it in the first place? Go take your ass
: into
:> >[] > Tower Records and take a CD of an artist you would never listen to
: HOME
:> >[] > (downloading). Tell me that's not stealing.
:> >[]
:> >[] Taking a CD physically from a retail store is stealing. Downloading a
: copy
:> >[] of that song is a copyright violation. This ain't rocket science.
:> >
:> >Dude, if you're comfortable with the concept that copyright violation
:> >is not theft, somehow, then I'd like share what you're smokin'.
:>
:> So is using a paper copy machine theft?

: If you are using the machine to copy copyrighted material for distribution,
: yup.
: You are allowed to make copies for personal and educational purposes, but if
: you go and photocopy Time magazine, and sell or give the copies away, you're
: doing something illegal.

: I think there is even a law about how much of a work you can copy for
: educational purposes. Either a number of pages from any text, or some
: percentage of the text. I don't recall, but I'm certain it exists.

If you are using the material for education or comment only 10% can be copied.
This is flexible in court depending on if what you needed to make your point
could fit in 10% or 12%. . .lots of grey area in copyright law. . .

Garry

: Professors have been popped for making photocopies of articles in feild
: journals to distrubute to classes, for example.

:> If yes, do you walk to the other side of the street to avoid the
:> untouchables who enter Kinko's?

: Go and ask Kinko's to make a hundred copies of this weeks Time magazine, see
: what they say.

:> To me, the current situation with regards to music sharing is a result
:> of the music industry's price fixing. People have been gouged/ripped
:> off for so long they no longer respect the industry. Suing people
:> will not convince them to buy your product.
:>
:> "83 percent of teenagers polled said it was morally acceptable to
:> download music from the Internet for free."
:>
: http://www.concordmonitor.com/stories/crime/2003/100103downloading_arg_2003.
: shtml

: I get ALL my moral advice from teenagers, you bet. When in doubt, ask a
: teenager, that's what I say.

:> The copyright dependent industries should provide better product
:> because they are fighting a losing battle.

: So you think teenagers would suggest that if the product were better, they
: wouldn't steal it? Yes, it all becomes clear now...

: Dan

[Tom Shear]

I don't know if this has been brought up or not since I didn't have the time to
rifle through the tons of replies here, but I find it hilarious that most of
the people spouting off the most about the RIAA don't realize that it only
governs a handful of major labels. In other words, most of the stuff in this
scene, however broadly you define that, has NOTHING to do with the RIAA.

People can try to justify what they're doing as much as they want, but it IS
hurting the artists. And in a small, 'indie' scene such as our own, it's the
artists you care about who are going to get screwed the hardest... the ones
that have nothing to do with the RIAA at all. The so-called 'boycotting' of
buying records (downloading instead) is going to have a much larger impact on
the bands you care about because the indie labels don't have the money the
larger ones do... they don't have the same 'safety buffer'. So essentially, if
you're going to put anyone out of business, it's going to be all the smaller
labels. Now you're left with nothing but Celine Dion. Happy?

I know a lot of people are good about simply using downloading as a way of
auditioning new music and go out and buy everything they like, but I can tell
you first hand that these people are not in the majority. This summer over
1,000 'mom n' pop' indie record stores went out of business across the US...
actually, the number is probably higher, but these were just stores Metropolis
distributed to. Here in Seattle, our own Musicwerks is now at the point of
losing money by being open. I, myself, have received dozens of emails from
'fans' who proclaim proudly, "I've downloaded ALL your music!" A friend of
mine in a noise band recently toured and said he was asked to sign more burned
copies of his CD than the actual real CD. Now the label he runs may have to
shut down.

Are CD's too expensive? Well, depends where you shop. If you're a smart
consumer, you can find just about anything for $13-14. They could probably be
even cheaper, but again, keep in mind that the major labels are the only ones
printing numbers of CD sufficient to not suffer a HUGE hit from this. Your
average industrial label prints things up 1,000 at a time for most releases,
thus their cost per disc is much higher than a label that prints 10 times that
and thus gets a huge price break.

And don't leave the retailers out of this either. I know what the wholesale
prices are on some of these discs I've seen in chain stores for $18, and it's
the retailers markup that is contributing to the problem as much as anything
else.

The record industry most definitely has some issues to address, but they are
complex issues that will change much of the industry as we have known it so
far. However, this doesn't excuse the blatant illegal distribution to
potentially thousands of people , thus screwing over the artists you claim to
like. If you REALLY want to screw the RIAA, then go out and BUY indie releases
that have nothing to do with the RIAA, and don't download them.
-t/a23
http://www.assemblage23.com

[John P.]

"Not A Speck Of Cereal" wrote in a message

Post by Not A Speck Of Cereal
Dude, if you're comfortable with the concept that copyright violation
is not theft, somehow, then I'd like share what you're smokin'.

Dude, if you think copyright violation is stealing, then it's best that
you're not a lawyer.

[Joe]

Post by Ed Cregger
Copyright violations deprives the artists of their income. THAT is stealing.

If that were strictly the case, then there would be no question about
it. But...

Recording artists are getting ripped off by the record companies. Doubt
that? Go back and re-read the testimony given before Congress about the
Napster debate by both Roger McGuinn and John Perry Barlow.

Roger McGuinn, founder of the Byrds, has sold millions of records, and in
his Congressional testimony, said he never made a dime from those record
sales.

We as consumers are stuck paying $18 or more for a CD, and the artists get
zip. So, trading music seems to be a statement to the record companies.

If CDs cost $5, I doubt there would be as much copyright infringement as
their is now. If any at all.

That said, I'm posting this from rec.music.gdead, and the Dead do allow
taping of shows, and trading of shows. So, we're not infringing anyone's
copyright by trading live shows.

Joe


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Bill]

Post by Joe
Recording artists are getting ripped off by the record companies. Doubt
that? Go back and re-read the testimony given before Congress about the
Napster debate by both Roger McGuinn and John Perry Barlow.
Roger McGuinn, founder of the Byrds, has sold millions of records, and in
his Congressional testimony, said he never made a dime from those record
sales.
We as consumers are stuck paying $18 or more for a CD, and the artists get
zip. So, trading music seems to be a statement to the record companies.

The line I hear so often is that putting an artist's work on a
filesharing network actually HELPS them sell records, by giving people
a chance to hear something they wouldn't have ordinarily.

So, the statement you're making to the record company is, "here, I'm
going to do you a favor by putting your material on this network,
which will result in you making a bunch more money that will never
find its way into the artist's pocket".

If you're mad at the labels, you should be refusing to purchase OR to
fileshare any of their material.

Post by Joe
If CDs cost $5, I doubt there would be as much copyright infringement as
their is now. If any at all.

Because there are so many people out there just dying to pay five
bucks for something they've been getting for free?

Post by Joe
That said, I'm posting this from rec.music.gdead, and the Dead do allow
taping of shows, and trading of shows. So, we're not infringing anyone's
copyright by trading live shows.

As long as it's voluntary, that's wonderful.

[Joe]

Post by Bill
So, the statement you're making to the record company is, "here, I'm
going to do you a favor by putting your material on this network,
which will result in you making a bunch more money that will never
find its way into the artist's pocket".
If you're mad at the labels, you should be refusing to purchase OR to
fileshare any of their material.

Hold on a second there. Just because I'm not thrilled with the practices
of the record companies, don't assume that I "file-share." I don't. I'm on
a dial up, and have never even seen napster, kazaa, or any of the others.

That said, McGuinn's and Barlow's testimony before Congress is pretty
convincing that those record companies are ripping off both artist and
consumer.

Joe


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Bill]

Post by Joe

Post by Bill
So, the statement you're making to the record company is, "here, I'm
going to do you a favor by putting your material on this network,
which will result in you making a bunch more money that will never
find its way into the artist's pocket".
If you're mad at the labels, you should be refusing to purchase OR to
fileshare any of their material.

Hold on a second there. Just because I'm not thrilled with the practices
of the record companies, don't assume that I "file-share." I don't. I'm on
a dial up, and have never even seen napster, kazaa, or any of the others.

Sorry, I didn't mean to accuse you of anything. But I have seen that
logical disconnect before, with file-sharers simultaneously lauding
the benefits of file-sharing to the artist and encouraging
file-sharing to "punish" the record companies for their greediness.
It always made me wonder if they were serious about file-sharing
helping the artists, or if they were just trying to rationalize
something they knew was wrong.

Post by Joe
That said, McGuinn's and Barlow's testimony before Congress is pretty
convincing that those record companies are ripping off both artist and
consumer.

Some artists just sign lousy contracts than regret it later, and then
there are some who are actually getting ripped off by creative
bookkeeping and the like. I fail to see how consumers are being
ripped off, though. You pick up the CD in the store, and you buy it
or you don't buy it. Unless they're misrepresenting what's in the
package, the consumer is getting the product they chose.

[Garry Bryan]

When I make a copy of an artists work I contact them and send them a check for
$5. . .works for David Lindley and for Wake the Dead. . .

Garry

www.leftycomics.com

[DG]

Post by Garry Bryan
When I make a copy of an artists work I contact them and send them a check for
$5. . .works for David Lindley and for Wake the Dead. . .

Cool idea. Is this their official policy?

I've checked Lindley's website and can't find it.

[Garry Bryan]

In rec.music.gdead DG <***@nospam.nospam> wrote:
: Garry wrote:
:>
:>When I make a copy of an artists work I contact them and send them a check for
:>$5. . .works for David Lindley and for Wake the Dead. . .

: Cool idea. Is this their official policy?

: I've checked Lindley's website and can't find it.

It was on his first "Official Bootleg" CD . . .he wrote on the liner notes to
send him $5 if you made a cassette copy. .. or he would hunt you in your dreams
with a big scary knife!!

Garry

[Dippi]

Post by Garry Bryan
When I make a copy of an artists work I contact them and send them a check for
$5. . .works for David Lindley and for Wake the Dead. . .
Garry
www.leftycomics.com

now this is a business model... support indy acts... payin under the table,
fuck a label

[Joe]

I fail to see how consumers are being ripped off, though.

When CDs where first introduced, their $18 price was double what vinyl
cost. At the time, the record companies justified the increased cost
by citing that there were only 2 manufacturing facilities on the planet
that could press CDs.

Now, 20 years later, with 50-packs of Made in Japan Fujis going for less
than $10, the manufacturing costs have plummeted, and the price has
remained the same $18.

People are pissed at the record companies.

I understand. I sympathize. But, I don't file-share.

I prefer trading via the mail ;-)

Joe


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[DG]

I fail to see how consumers are being ripped off, though.

Start here:
http://www.southend.wayne.edu/days/2002/oct/10162002/news/prices/prices.html

[Bill]

Post by DG

I fail to see how consumers are being ripped off, though.

http://www.southend.wayne.edu/days/2002/oct/10162002/news/prices/prices.html

Okay, I can see where consumers would have a problem with
price-fixing. Still, there remains a problem that isn't being
resolved, that being stores like Target and WalMart that sell CDs at
below cost in order to generate traffic. I'm sure consumers like
paying less than cost for CDs, but what happens if they want to buy a
CD that Sam Walton doesn't think is morally acceptable? Buy from
their local record store? Oops, they went out of business because
they couldn't compete with WalMart. It's a tough question, I think.

But thanks for providing the link, it's a case I was unaware of.

[Les Cargill]

Post by Bill

Post by DG

I fail to see how consumers are being ripped off, though.

http://www.southend.wayne.edu/days/2002/oct/10162002/news/prices/prices.html

Okay, I can see where consumers would have a problem with
price-fixing.

*Grumble*. Broke link from here.

I don't. It ain't, or is at least arguably the case. At least I
remember losing the argument at one point. Price fixing has
a specific legal meaning, and this ain't it.

Post by Bill
Still, there remains a problem that isn't being
resolved, that being stores like Target and WalMart that sell CDs at
below cost in order to generate traffic. I'm sure consumers like
paying less than cost for CDs, but what happens if they want to buy a
CD that Sam Walton doesn't think is morally acceptable?

WallyWorld does not proactively filter material. They react
only to complaints, some of which can be as loud as class action
suits ala the Gore flak/debacle of Zappa's documenting.

Post by Bill
Buy from
their local record store? Oops, they went out of business because
they couldn't compete with WalMart. It's a tough question, I think.

It is not tough at all. You either conform to the Law of Low, Low
Prices thing and watch the record store go OOB or you don't.

The Walton legacy is anything but stupid - they know
empirically how people will behave in a retail context,
and they run the thing lean as a bunch of Trappist monks.

WalMart is one of the most radically capitalist organizations
on the planet, and I know of no charges, ever, that they got
tagged with doing anything unethical that stuck. There are
a couple sharp elbow things about employee treatment that
might work, might not, but as far as the goods go, they
give 110%.

It's a truly extraordinary retail operation, and they very
well conform to, and do not dictate, retail taste in the USofA.
It's a mirror.

Post by Bill
But thanks for providing the link, it's a case I was unaware of.

--
Les Cargill

[Jeffraham Prestonian]

Post by Les Cargill
WalMart is one of the most radically capitalist organizations
on the planet, and I know of no charges, ever, that they got
tagged with doing anything unethical that stuck. There are
a couple sharp elbow things about employee treatment that
might work, might not, but as far as the goods go, they
give 110%.

I reckon a surefire way to insure that China launches
a first strike on the U.S. is if Wal-Mart gets caught up
in an Enron-like scandal. Or if the income redistribution
scheme presently underway in Washington, D.C. leaves
the peasants with insufficient funds to sate their need
for cheap, Chinese plastic things.

[Bat]

Post by Bill

Post by Joe
Recording artists are getting ripped off by the record companies. Doubt
that? Go back and re-read the testimony given before Congress about the
Napster debate by both Roger McGuinn and John Perry Barlow.
Roger McGuinn, founder of the Byrds, has sold millions of records, and in
his Congressional testimony, said he never made a dime from those record
sales.
We as consumers are stuck paying $18 or more for a CD, and the artists get
zip. So, trading music seems to be a statement to the record companies.

The line I hear so often is that putting an artist's work on a
filesharing network actually HELPS them sell records, by giving people
a chance to hear something they wouldn't have ordinarily.

LOL - I was a believer in that in the beginning. While the advent of
exposing ones music helps an artist get EXPOSURE, it was THOUGHT it would
increase sales... but logic took over.

You download a song at CD quality.
You say to yourself: "OH, Cool, I like this band! I'll search for MORE of
them!"
Result = You end up downloading enough to make you forget about buying it.

Plain sad truth...

[-mike-]

Post by Ed Cregger
I have wondered the same thing myself. How many of them would go to work if
they did not receive a paycheck? None.

How many people would make music if they were not paid for
it? Millions. How much of that is worth listening to? A
fraction. Should musicians get paid for the joy they
spread? Absolutely. Should the "music industry" get most/
all of that money instead of the artists? Certainly not.
Is the current system broken? You better believe it. Are
some file sharers greedy/ selfish thieves? Of course. Are
all file sharers freeloaders? Not by a long shot. Am I
starting to sound like Rumsfeld? Sadly, yes.

ymmv,
-m-

[Ed Cregger]

Yes, filesharers are freeloaders - period.

If the system is broke, fix it. Justifying theft as some noble cause is the
same type of con that the people you allegedly hate are performing. Same
technique, different details.

Ed Cregger

Post by -mike-

Post by Ed Cregger
I have wondered the same thing myself. How many of them would go to work if
they did not receive a paycheck? None.

How many people would make music if they were not paid for
it? Millions. How much of that is worth listening to? A
fraction. Should musicians get paid for the joy they
spread? Absolutely. Should the "music industry" get most/
all of that money instead of the artists? Certainly not.
Is the current system broken? You better believe it. Are
some file sharers greedy/ selfish thieves? Of course. Are
all file sharers freeloaders? Not by a long shot. Am I
starting to sound like Rumsfeld? Sadly, yes.
ymmv,
-m-

[Soterro]

Post by -mike-
How many people would make music if they were not paid for
it? Millions. How much of that is worth listening to? A
fraction. Should musicians get paid for the joy they
spread? Absolutely. Should the "music industry" get most/
all of that money instead of the artists? Certainly not.
Is the current system broken? You better believe it. Are
some file sharers greedy/ selfish thieves? Of course. Are
all file sharers freeloaders? Not by a long shot. Am I
starting to sound like Rumsfeld? Sadly, yes.

I would add to this also the benefits that the one which offers the
studio, the marketing opportunities, the financial risks, has to
receive. That's why the small labels sell also online. I don't know
about their price politics, but obviously you get even nowadays fairly
better prices even for the small editions (*). That would be the real
action, to ignore the big players (labels, sellers), instead of just
looking for justifications to do nothing and grab everything.
But heh it ain't that easy when you're so dumb you think you MUST have
that latest Eminem only because the ads told you so but you won't pay
it because the big labels are selling it at big prices (so you
download it). Unless you're smart enough to make a decision, you're
either in their hands or on the illegal side.
I also like the idea of copy = pay something to the band, although
it's too much based on fair use which is, let's face it, not a strong
point of our swappers.

S

(*) and they even try to help sales by issuing packages
limitededition-special-finecardboard-numbered-bandsigned-posterincluded-previouslyunreleased-propellerbeanie.
Also the small labels are trying to access the moron population base,
in their funny original ways.

np: Die Krupps - Risk (metallic outro)

[suntzu]

Post by Bat

Post by suntzu

Post by Bat
----- Original Message -----

rec.music.gdead,rec.music.hip-hop,rec.music.industrial,rec.music.makers.guit

Post by suntzu

Post by Bat
ar,rec.music.makers.percussion
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: Nationwide Halloween RAVE Against RIAA!!

Post by suntzu
stop plugging your ears and
yelling that sharing music is wrong no matter what.

You would make a good republican.

because republicans are pro-file-sharing? i've been accused of plenty
of things, but i don't think being a republican was ever one of them.

Smart enough to in one sentence try to condone and justify doing something
illegal and harmful to others for the sake of your own greed.
But I'm not surprised you didn't understand that either.

one day, people will be educated enough about fair use and intellectual
property that this sort of superficial view of copyright law will be the
exclusive province of trolls.

one day...

[Bat]

Post by suntzu
one day, people will be educated enough about fair use and intellectual
property that this sort of superficial view of copyright law will be the
exclusive province of trolls.
one day...

you will be gone. That will be a good day.

Superficial view of Copyright Laws? OMFG, you ARE a clueless retard. You
haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about not to mention the
simple fact you can't even grasp the simple fundamentals of right and wrong.