[[email protected]]

They have actually been doing this for quite some time now.
The binary groups have been getting flooded with all kinds of SPAM
masquerading as *legitimate*, labeit pirated, programs.
Many believe the RIAA is behind this massive amount of crap polluting
the groups.

IOW you think you are downloading Barry Manilow and you end up with
either a virus or 40MB of some high school BagPipe band
playing Christmas carols.

For the record, pun intended, I believe people should be paid for
their work but at the same time I don't believe a CD of
Busta Rhymes (isn't he in jail?) is worth $18.99.

I applaud bands like RadioHead and others who are either giving their
music away or offering it up for reasonable cost.

The RIAA is plain evil and they realize that the consumer is on to the
fact that their is so very little talent out there in the commercial
world.
Most of the real talent is on the independents and performing in local
clubs.
IOW the RIAA is seeing their cash cow go down the drain and this is
the only way they can react.

It will fail, just like the rest of their attempts.





On Oct 16, 3:40 pm, "[H]omer" wrote:
It had to happen eventually:

.----
| Basking in glory after orchestrating a record punishment for a
| petty file-sharer in the US, the RIAA takes its legal campaign to
| the next level. Many may want newsgroups to stay under the radar
| but it's too late - major labels have filed a copyright
| infringement lawsuit against Usenet.com and it won't be going away.
`----

http://digg.com/tech_news/The_RIAA_Attacks_Usenet

I've often wondered why the alt.binaries.warez groups seemed immune to
the harsh glare of the software/music/movie corporations all this time.
Looks like the party's over.

Not that I, or any other Free Software users need ever worry about any
of that nonsense, but a large proportion of the Windows fanbois seem to
populate their computers with that virus-infected junk, for some reason.
When the day comes that they're forced to start shelling out 600 quid
for /legal/ copies of Photoshop (for a change), I wonder how much more
attractive the Gimp will seem then?

Anyway, it's early days yet, and we all know how "successful" the RIAA
have been with their campaign against bittorrent users ...

--
K.http://slated.org

.----
| "[Microsoft] are willing to lose money for years and years just to
| make sure that you don't make any money, either." - Bob Cringely.
| -http://blog.businessofsoftware.org/2007/07/cringely-the-un.html
`----

Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
20:38:40 up 68 days, 19:33, 3 users, load average: 0.05, 0.36, 0.31

[Richard Crowley]

wrote ...
They have actually been doing this for quite some time now.
The binary groups have been getting flooded with all kinds of SPAM
masquerading as *legitimate*, labeit pirated, programs.
Many believe the RIAA is behind this massive amount of crap polluting
the groups.

But that sort of thing has been going on in binaries newsgrops
long before MP3 or RIAA came on the scene.

[bob]

On Oct 16, 4:03 pm, wrote:

For the record, pun intended, I believe people should be paid for
their work but at the same time I don't believe a CD of
Busta Rhymes (isn't he in jail?) is worth $18.99.

Then you shouldn't buy it. Simple as that.

And, it goes without saying, you shouldn't steal it, either.

bob

[Mark]

On Oct 16, 7:21 pm, bob wrote:
On Oct 16, 4:03 pm, wrote:

For the record, pun intended, I believe people should be paid for
their work but at the same time I don't believe a CD of
Busta Rhymes (isn't he in jail?) is worth $18.99.

Then you shouldn't buy it. Simple as that.

And, it goes without saying, you shouldn't steal it, either.

bob

If it was broadcast on the radio, then it was "given away" to the
public and anyone can legally have a recording of it.

That's the way I see it ...
I know that's not exactly the same way the law sees it however..

Mark

[hank alrich]

wrote:

They have actually been doing this for quite some time now.
The binary groups have been getting flooded with all kinds of SPAM
masquerading as *legitimate*, labeit pirated, programs.
Many believe the RIAA is behind this massive amount of crap polluting
the groups.

"Many believe"... many believe all kinds of stuff, much of it without
logical basis.

IOW you think you are downloading Barry Manilow and you end up with
either a virus or 40MB of some high school BagPipe band
playing Christmas carols.

So you get what you deserve, at least in part.

For the record, pun intended, I believe people should be paid for
their work but at the same time I don't believe a CD of
Busta Rhymes (isn't he in jail?) is worth $18.99.

So what? Do you want it? Buy it. Don't want it? No problem. Think it's
cool to steal it? Problem, and it isn't about who gets what money; it's
about even a touch of integrity.

I applaud bands like RadioHead and others who are either giving their
music away or offering it up for reasonable cost.

So how much did you pay for the Radiohead music?

The RIAA is plain evil and they realize that the consumer is on to the
fact that their is so very little talent out there in the commercial
world.

The consumer is onto nothing but the indea that music should be free,
since musicians, engineers, producers, receptionists, and everyone else
but the consumer has no overhead or expenses, doesn't need shelter,
food, clothing ior medicine. What's wrong with this picture?

Most of the real talent is on the independents and performing in local
clubs.

Could be most of the real talent isn't out there performing at all, but
is working some job that will cover expenses.


--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:58:54 -0700, Mark wrote:

For the record, pun intended, I believe people should be paid for
their work but at the same time I don't believe a CD of
Busta Rhymes (isn't he in jail?) is worth $18.99.

Then you shouldn't buy it. Simple as that.

And, it goes without saying, you shouldn't steal it, either.

bob

If it was broadcast on the radio, then it was "given away" to the
public and anyone can legally have a recording of it.

That's the way I see it ...
I know that's not exactly the same way the law sees it however..

What meaning have you invented for the word "legally" in the above?
:-)

[chrisv]

Mark wrote:

On Oct 16, 7:21 pm, bob wrote:
On Oct 16, 4:03 pm, wrote:

For the record, pun intended, I believe people should be paid for
their work but at the same time I don't believe a CD of
Busta Rhymes (isn't he in jail?) is worth $18.99.

Then you shouldn't buy it. Simple as that.

Exactly.

And, it goes without saying, you shouldn't steal it, either.

If it was broadcast on the radio, then it was "given away" to the
public and anyone can legally have a recording of it.

Idiot. Not QUITE as convenient to collect, use, and redistribute the
songs/albums that you like that way, now is it? Sheesh!

That's the way I see it ...

Yeah, scum always has some way to rationalize their immoral behavior.

I know that's not exactly the same way the law sees it however..

As it should be. Too bad it's so hard to catch thieves on the
Internet, and so many have the attitude "if I can steal it, and not
get caught, I will".

[Mark]

On Oct 17, 8:33 am, Laurence Payne NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com
wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:58:54 -0700, Mark wrote:
For the record, pun intended, I believe people should be paid for
their work but at the same time I don't believe a CD of
Busta Rhymes (isn't he in jail?) is worth $18.99.

Then you shouldn't buy it. Simple as that.

And, it goes without saying, you shouldn't steal it, either.

bob

If it was broadcast on the radio, then it was "given away" to the
public and anyone can legally have a recording of it.

That's the way I see it ...
I know that's not exactly the same way the law sees it however..

What meaning have you invented for the word "legally" in the above?
:-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In the US, it IS legal to record a song off the radio for your own
personal use. I did not "invent" that.

Therefore, once a song has been ___broadcast___ on the radio, I can
legally possess a recording of it that I did not pay for to use for
my own personal use.

thanks
Mark


Mark

[David Grant]

The consumer is onto nothing but the indea that music should be free,
since musicians, engineers, producers, receptionists, and everyone else
but the consumer has no overhead or expenses, doesn't need shelter,
food, clothing ior medicine. What's wrong with this picture?

I guess you didn't get the memo... They redefined morality.

But seriously, the value of recorded music has dropped - if you consider
value to be the highest price a person will pay to obtain a recording. That
happened, in my opinion, the moment the recording went from being a tangable
object you held in your hand and inserted into a playback device, complete
with artwork and lyrics, to an abstract sequence of 1s and 0s that took up
no physical space. Yes, it's still the same thing, but as soon as people saw
it could be represented in this form, a psychology shift took hold of them.

My explaination (not to be confused with justification) is that our nature
is not to associate the value of something with the difficulty with which it
was created; we associate it with the difficulty with which we can REcreate
it. In the case of digital music, it is trivial: Copy - Paste. If it were
possible to copy and paste a Porsch 911, that would then become worthless
too, as long as there was at least one publicly available.

If the RIAA *could* return us to 15 years ago by miraculously preventing all
digital music trading, I highly doubt people would return to paying $20 per
album. I don't know exactly what would happen, but I suspect there would be
mass outrage.

Lesson learned: if you want your product to retain its value, ensure it can
NEVER be completely represented digitally.

Recorded music has no value; We've returned from whence we came: Live music
is king.

[Geoff]

hank alrich wrote:

I applaud bands like RadioHead and others who are either giving their
music away or offering it up for reasonable cost.

So how much did you pay for the Radiohead music?

I think that free *is* a reasonable cost for the drab mediocre dirge that is
Radiohead music....

Could be most of the real talent isn't out there performing at all,
but is working some job that will cover expenses.

But why do the vacuous starlets that DO get exposure, get it ?

geoff

[Laurence Payne]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:25:43 -0700, Mark wrote:

If it was broadcast on the radio, then it was "given away" to the
public and anyone can legally have a recording of it.

That's the way I see it ...
I know that's not exactly the same way the law sees it however..

What meaning have you invented for the word "legally" in the above?
:-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In the US, it IS legal to record a song off the radio for your own
personal use. I did not "invent" that.

Therefore, once a song has been ___broadcast___ on the radio, I can
legally possess a recording of it that I did not pay for to use for
my own personal use.

So what meaning does "that's not exactly the way the law sees it"
have?

[Paul Stamler]

A sideline of the current debate: has anyone compared the cost of a song via
downloading (almost universally US$0.99) with what songs cost in the past?
I've been doing some historical research, and when you factor inflation into
the picture (using a simple cost-of-living calculator), it seems the $0.99
download is more-or-less the cheapest price in history for a song. Cheaper
than cylinders, 78s, 45s, most LPs, CDs, etc.. There are fudge factors,
obviously, the most important being the number of songs on an LP/CD, which
is why I said "more-or-less". But it's pretty remarkable; in the Depression
year of 1935 people were paying $0.35 for a 78 with two songs on it, $5.09
in 2006 dollars (the latest available), or $2.545/song.

I use the Consumer Price Index calculator at
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi .

Peace,
Paul

[Scott Dorsey]

Paul Stamler wrote:
A sideline of the current debate: has anyone compared the cost of a song via
downloading (almost universally US$0.99) with what songs cost in the past?
I've been doing some historical research, and when you factor inflation into
the picture (using a simple cost-of-living calculator), it seems the $0.99
download is more-or-less the cheapest price in history for a song. Cheaper
than cylinders, 78s, 45s, most LPs, CDs, etc.. There are fudge factors,
obviously, the most important being the number of songs on an LP/CD, which
is why I said "more-or-less". But it's pretty remarkable; in the Depression
year of 1935 people were paying $0.35 for a 78 with two songs on it, $5.09
in 2006 dollars (the latest available), or $2.545/song.

This makes sense, since what you are paying out of that $0.99 is almost
entirely rights.

That 78 with two songs on it cost a whole lot to manufacture. The LP
cost much less per song to make, but the CD cost even less. And downloads
cost hardly anything at all to distribute. So back in 1935, the cost of
the physical media was a good part of the cost of the disc, whereas it's
now zero.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[chrisv]

David Grant wrote:

But seriously, the value of recorded music has dropped - if you consider
value to be the highest price a person will pay to obtain a recording.

And also considering that so many people are will to steal, that the
producers are being forced to lower prices. Is that they way the
market is supposed to work? I always thought it was about consumers
either buying your product or not.

(snip)
Lesson learned: if you want your product to retain its value, ensure it can
NEVER be completely represented digitally.

Nonsense.

Recorded music has no value;

That's what thieves want to tell themselves, anyway.

There's a reason for copyright laws. Just because you could scan the
latest Harry Potter book and distribute it digitally for almost
nothing, doesn't mean that the story has lost it's "value".

[Mark]

On Oct 18, 8:57 am, chrisv wrote:
David Grant wrote:
But seriously, the value of recorded music has dropped - if you consider
value to be the highest price a person will pay to obtain a recording.

And also considering that so many people are will to steal, that the
producers are being forced to lower prices. Is that they way the
market is supposed to work? I always thought it was about consumers
either buying your product or not.

(snip)
Lesson learned: if you want your product to retain its value, ensure it can
NEVER be completely represented digitally.

Nonsense.

Recorded music has no value;

That's what thieves want to tell themselves, anyway.

There's a reason for copyright laws. Just because you could scan the
latest Harry Potter book and distribute it digitally for almost
nothing, doesn't mean that the story has lost it's "value".

the analogy is flawed because copies of the Harry Potter book are not
broadcast on TV... copies of popular music ARE broadcast to the
public on the radio... and the public is legally allowed to make
recordings of those broadcasts for private use...

I think there is a fundamental contradiction between publicizing music
by "giving it away" on the radio and then charging money for it.

Advances in technology have made this contradiction even more
apparent.

Mark

[chrisv]

Mark wrote:

the analogy is flawed because copies of the Harry Potter book are not
broadcast on TV... copies of popular music ARE broadcast to the
public on the radio... and the public is legally allowed to make
recordings of those broadcasts for private use...

I think there is a fundamental contradiction between publicizing music
by "giving it away" on the radio and then charging money for it.

Let me get this straight. Once a song has been broadcast on a radio
station in, say, your local market, you feel that that gives you carte
blanche to obtain and keep, from any source available to you, a
recording of that song?

As an extension, if a movie has been played on television, do you feel
that you then have the right to obtain and keep a copy of the movie's
DVD?

[Mark]

On Oct 18, 10:19 am, chrisv wrote:
Mark wrote:
the analogy is flawed because copies of the Harry Potter book are not
broadcast on TV... copies of popular music ARE broadcast to the
public on the radio... and the public is legally allowed to make
recordings of those broadcasts for private use...

I think there is a fundamental contradiction between publicizing music
by "giving it away" on the radio and then charging money for it.

Let me get this straight. Once a song has been broadcast on a radio
station in, say, your local market, you feel that that gives you carte
blanche to obtain and keep, from any source available to you, a
recording of that song?

To use for my own private use.... YES.

As an extension, if a movie has been played on television, do you feel
that you then have the right to obtain and keep a copy of the movie's
DVD?

To use for my own private use.... YES.

In both cases, the content has been BROADCAST to the public. Consider
the meaning of the term broadcast.

I just noticed this thread crossposted in some comp os group,,, all
future posts from me on this topic will be in rec.audio.pro only.



Mark

[David Grant]

"chrisv" wrote in message
...
David Grant wrote:

But seriously, the value of recorded music has dropped - if you consider
value to be the highest price a person will pay to obtain a recording.

And also considering that so many people are will to steal, that the
producers are being forced to lower prices. Is that they way the
market is supposed to work? I always thought it was about consumers
either buying your product or not.

I don't believe there's a way it's "supposed to work". The market and it's
operation is based off trade, which is a natural human phenomenon. The way
that it's supposed to work is, quite simply, the way that it does work.

(snip)
Lesson learned: if you want your product to retain its value, ensure it
can
NEVER be completely represented digitally.

Nonsense.

Recorded music has no value;

That's what thieves want to tell themselves, anyway.

There's a reason for copyright laws. Just because you could scan the
latest Harry Potter book and distribute it digitally for almost
nothing, doesn't mean that the story has lost it's "value".


You can define value however you want; my definition is what, all
environmental parameters considered, people will pay for something. Since
the digital revolution the value of recorded music has begun its asymptotic
trend towards 0, whether its morally right, wrong, or somewhere inbetween.
Never before has it been possible to obtain something for free without
significant threat of legal intervention, and that is the key parameter that
has changed to reveal something about ourselves we never knew. Call it a
design flaw, call it whatever.

Music downloading is now sufficiently widespread that it's asafe to say it
is human nature to do so. It's also human nature to commit adultery, and if
that began to happen on a scale as massive as music downloading then society
would likely, after some confusing process, bend its laws to be more
accepting of it. I think we're undergoing that process with digital music,
much to the dismay of those who are set in their ways. A few generations
from now the old ways will be forgotten; I for one am excited to see how it
all plays out

David

[chrisv]

Mark wrote:

On Oct 18, 10:19 am, chrisv wrote:
Mark wrote:
the analogy is flawed because copies of the Harry Potter book are not
broadcast on TV... copies of popular music ARE broadcast to the
public on the radio... and the public is legally allowed to make
recordings of those broadcasts for private use...

I think there is a fundamental contradiction between publicizing music
by "giving it away" on the radio and then charging money for it.

Let me get this straight. Once a song has been broadcast on a radio
station in, say, your local market, you feel that that gives you carte
blanche to obtain and keep, from any source available to you, a
recording of that song?

To use for my own private use.... YES.

Then you're a scumbag idiot (and a thief, if you actually do this).

As an extension, if a movie has been played on television, do you feel
that you then have the right to obtain and keep a copy of the movie's
DVD?

To use for my own private use.... YES.

Then you're a scumbag idiot (and a thief, if you actually do this).

In both cases, the content has been BROADCAST to the public. Consider
the meaning of the term broadcast.

I just noticed this thread crossposted in some comp os group,,, all
future posts from me on this topic will be in rec.audio.pro only.

Oh, so you're a coward as well as a scumbag idiot (and, most likely, a
thief).

Whattaguy.

[chrisv]

David Grant wrote:

You can define value however you want; my definition is what, all
environmental parameters considered, people will pay for something. Since
the digital revolution the value of recorded music has begun its asymptotic
trend towards 0, whether its morally right, wrong, or somewhere inbetween.
Never before has it been possible to obtain something for free without
significant threat of legal intervention, and that is the key parameter that
has changed to reveal something about ourselves we never knew. Call it a
design flaw, call it whatever.

Many things have that type of "design flaw", which is why locks and
keys, and digital rights management, where invented.

This extra effort to discourage scumbags from taking what is not
rightfully their's wastes a lot of resources - we all pay for it.

Music downloading is now sufficiently widespread that it's asafe to say it
is human nature to do so. It's also human nature to commit adultery, and if
that began to happen on a scale as massive as music downloading then society
would likely, after some confusing process, bend its laws to be more
accepting of it. I think we're undergoing that process with digital music,
much to the dismay of those who are set in their ways. A few generations
from now the old ways will be forgotten;

I won't argue that idiots and assholes are so common that you could
call it "human nature". I guess there's not much to be done about it
but lock-up our possessions, and throw the worst assholes into prison.
Of course, we'll all pay for it, with loss of rights, taxes for the
prisons, etc...

I for one am excited to see how it all plays out

Probably for the worse, with all the honest people losing-out, all
because of the scumbags.

[Mark]

On Oct 18, 12:53 pm, chrisv wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Oct 18, 10:19 am, chrisv wrote:
Mark wrote:
the analogy is flawed because copies of the Harry Potter book are not
broadcast on TV... copies of popular music ARE broadcast to the
public on the radio... and the public is legally allowed to make
recordings of those broadcasts for private use...

I think there is a fundamental contradiction between publicizing music
by "giving it away" on the radio and then charging money for it.

Let me get this straight. Once a song has been broadcast on a radio
station in, say, your local market, you feel that that gives you carte
blanche to obtain and keep, from any source available to you, a
recording of that song?

To use for my own private use.... YES.

Then you're a scumbag idiot (and a thief, if you actually do this).



very logical reply
goodbye

Mark

[jakdedert]

Paul Stamler wrote:
A sideline of the current debate: has anyone compared the cost of a song via
downloading (almost universally US$0.99) with what songs cost in the past?
I've been doing some historical research, and when you factor inflation into
the picture (using a simple cost-of-living calculator), it seems the $0.99
download is more-or-less the cheapest price in history for a song. Cheaper
than cylinders, 78s, 45s, most LPs, CDs, etc.. There are fudge factors,
obviously, the most important being the number of songs on an LP/CD, which
is why I said "more-or-less". But it's pretty remarkable; in the Depression
year of 1935 people were paying $0.35 for a 78 with two songs on it, $5.09
in 2006 dollars (the latest available), or $2.545/song.

I use the Consumer Price Index calculator at
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi .

Peace,
Paul

The only thing I'd add to this (and Scott's reply), is that there are
additional costs to acquiring the song: the cost of the internet
connection, the cost of equipment. If one burns the song to a disk,
then the blank media cost factors in.

None of these revenues revert to the original creator of the song, but
that has always been the case. The difference is that there is no way
to apportion the cost per song. If one buys an iPod, a computer and an
internet connection, they could download one song or a thousand.

jak

[Scott Dorsey]

Mark wrote:

very logical reply
goodbye

It's true though. If you take someone else's work without paying him
for it, that's theft.

Much as everyone loves to hate the RIAA, and much as the RIAA's attempts
at dealing with the problem have been laughable, the central issue is
theft and it's not going to change as long as people are due fair pay
for fair work.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mark]

It's true though. If you take someone else's work without paying him
for it, that's theft.

Much as everyone loves to hate the RIAA, and much as the RIAA's attempts
at dealing with the problem have been laughable, the central issue is
theft and it's not going to change as long as people are due fair pay
for fair work.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

1) the "work" (song) was broadcast therefore it was not "taken", it
was "given". I know, that you know, that it is legal to record from
the radio.

2) the situation is ironic and sad considering that many artists in
the past have never received their fair share..


Mark

[Richard Crowley]

"Mark" wrote ...
It's true though. If you take someone else's work without paying him
for it, that's theft.

Much as everyone loves to hate the RIAA, and much as the RIAA's attempts
at dealing with the problem have been laughable, the central issue is
theft and it's not going to change as long as people are due fair pay
for fair work.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

1) the "work" (song) was broadcast therefore it was not "taken", it
was "given". I know, that you know, that it is legal to record from
the radio.

Except that what you are stealing wasn't recorded off the air.
You are demonstrating the textbook definition of "rationalization".
But it doesn't make such behavior any less likely to be called
"theft" or for the person doing it to be called a "scumbag".

2) the situation is ironic and sad considering that many artists in
the past have never received their fair share..

See: "rationalization"

PS: You aren't the first person to make this argument.
And you aren't the first person to have it rejected, either.

[Geoff]

Mark wrote:
It's true though. If you take someone else's work without paying him
for it, that's theft.

Much as everyone loves to hate the RIAA, and much as the RIAA's
attempts at dealing with the problem have been laughable, the
central issue is theft and it's not going to change as long as
people are due fair pay for fair work.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

1) the "work" (song) was broadcast therefore it was not "taken", it
was "given".

No, it was 'loaned'.

But on the other hand, I have an issue with being irradiated by peoples'
music that I may prefer not to receive in any form.


geoff

[owl]

In comp.os.linux.advocacy chrisv wrote:
Mark wrote:

the analogy is flawed because copies of the Harry Potter book are not
broadcast on TV... copies of popular music ARE broadcast to the
public on the radio... and the public is legally allowed to make
recordings of those broadcasts for private use...

I think there is a fundamental contradiction between publicizing music
by "giving it away" on the radio and then charging money for it.

Let me get this straight. Once a song has been broadcast on a radio
station in, say, your local market, you feel that that gives you carte
blanche to obtain and keep, from any source available to you, a
recording of that song?

As an extension, if a movie has been played on television, do you feel
that you then have the right to obtain and keep a copy of the movie's
DVD?


Did you never use a VCR to record a TV show for later viewing, or
8-tracks / cassettes / reel-to-reel to make personal music collections?
I remember FM stations broadcasting entire LPs. I wonder what that
was all about.

[cc]

On Oct 18, 12:53 pm, chrisv wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Oct 18, 10:19 am, chrisv wrote:
Mark wrote:
the analogy is flawed because copies of the Harry Potter book are not
broadcast on TV... copies of popular music ARE broadcast to the
public on the radio... and the public is legally allowed to make
recordings of those broadcasts for private use...

I think there is a fundamental contradiction between publicizing music
by "giving it away" on the radio and then charging money for it.

Let me get this straight. Once a song has been broadcast on a radio
station in, say, your local market, you feel that that gives you carte
blanche to obtain and keep, from any source available to you, a
recording of that song?

To use for my own private use.... YES.

Then you're a scumbag idiot (and a thief, if you actually do this).

As an extension, if a movie has been played on television, do you feel
that you then have the right to obtain and keep a copy of the movie's
DVD?

To use for my own private use.... YES.

Then you're a scumbag idiot (and a thief, if you actually do this).

You're an idiot, for personal use, it is completely legal. The problem
is re-broadcast or re-transmission. He said private use, that's well
within the law.

[Thufir]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:19:16 -0500, chrisv wrote:

Let me get this straight. Once a song has been broadcast on a radio
station in, say, your local market, you feel that that gives you carte
blanche to obtain and keep, from any source available to you, a
recording of that song?

Music broadcast over the radio (regular radio definitely, maybe internet
radio) can be legally recorded only for personal use.



-Thufir

[[email protected]]

On 18 loka, 17:19, chrisv wrote:

Let me get this straight. Once a song has been broadcast on a radio
station in, say, your local market, you feel that that gives you carte
blanche to obtain and keep, from any source available to you, a
recording of that song?

AFAIK, it's legal to record a song from a radio broadcast, but
personal use means that the person who recorded it is using it. It's
not legal to copy something someone else recorded from radio, so
obtaining a copy from someone else is illegal wether or not it was
recorded from a broadcast.

[Mickey]

On 2007-10-18, chrisv wrote:
David Grant wrote:

You can define value however you want; my definition is what, all
environmental parameters considered, people will pay for something. Since
the digital revolution the value of recorded music has begun its asymptotic
trend towards 0, whether its morally right, wrong, or somewhere inbetween.
Never before has it been possible to obtain something for free without
significant threat of legal intervention, and that is the key parameter that
has changed to reveal something about ourselves we never knew. Call it a
design flaw, call it whatever.

Many things have that type of "design flaw", which is why locks and
keys, and digital rights management, where invented.

If DRM worked, that would be fine. But it doesn't, and indeed DRM on
downloadable music actually prevents it from being purchased. It is much
more convenient to use the illegally downloaded music than it is
purchased music, which is the fatal flaw of the industry.

If you want to purchase music, and use it digitally in any type of
reasonable fashion, you have to buy the CD. Not only does it cost you
money, but you have to run a ripping program as well. At that point you
have made the cost of obtaining one song so high -- both in money and in
work -- that people will stretch their morals.

All pontificating about how it *should* be this or that way is
meaningless. It is completely clear that RIAA will not stop illegal
downloading any time soon.


This extra effort to discourage scumbags from taking what is not
rightfully their's wastes a lot of resources - we all pay for it.

Music downloading is now sufficiently widespread that it's asafe to say it
is human nature to do so. It's also human nature to commit adultery, and if
that began to happen on a scale as massive as music downloading then society
would likely, after some confusing process, bend its laws to be more
accepting of it. I think we're undergoing that process with digital music,
much to the dismay of those who are set in their ways. A few generations
from now the old ways will be forgotten;

I won't argue that idiots and assholes are so common that you could
call it "human nature". I guess there's not much to be done about it
but lock-up our possessions, and throw the worst assholes into prison.
Of course, we'll all pay for it, with loss of rights, taxes for the
prisons, etc...


I for one am excited to see how it all plays out

Probably for the worse, with all the honest people losing-out, all
because of the scumbags.

And people who call others assholes and scumbags sound tough and macho
at the time they say it, and impress a few people, but they turn off the
vast majority. You won't win friends and influence people with that
attitude, and that's what you have to do. RIAA has done a terrible job
of PR from the beginning.

I believe the best that can be done is to price unprotected music
such that people will download it to comply with the law. It would
work for me, certainly, as I don't illegally download. And it would
allow me to have a better music collection. I go places where it seems
people have absolutely everything ever recorded. They come over to my
place and I have nothing in comparison.

I tried using one of the digital download things, but the DRM was so
ridiculous that I stopped buying after purchasing a hundred tracks or so.
Now I subscribe to Rhapsody, Sirius, and buy a few carefully selected
CDs. Pretty **** poor, but the best I can do.

--
Mickey
Experience is what allows you to recognize a mistake the second
time you make it. -- unknown

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[chrisv]

Thufir wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:19:16 -0500, chrisv wrote:

Let me get this straight. Once a song has been broadcast on a radio
station in, say, your local market, you feel that that gives you carte
blanche to obtain and keep, from any source available to you, a
recording of that song?

Music broadcast over the radio (regular radio definitely, maybe internet
radio) can be legally recorded only for personal use.

That's different from obtaining it "somewhere else" because it has
been broadcast.

[chrisv]

owl wrote:

In comp.os.linux.advocacy chrisv wrote:

As an extension, if a movie has been played on television, do you feel
that you then have the right to obtain and keep a copy of the movie's
DVD?

Did you never use a VCR to record a TV show for later viewing, or
8-tracks / cassettes / reel-to-reel to make personal music collections?
I remember FM stations broadcasting entire LPs. I wonder what that
was all about.

That's different from obtaining it "somewhere else" because it has
been broadcast.

The fact that a movies has been broadcast on TV, does NOT give you the
right to own a pirated copy of the DVD. Nor should it.

[chrisv]

Mickey wrote:

On 2007-10-18, chrisv wrote:

Many things have that type of "design flaw", which is why locks and
keys, and digital rights management, where invented.

If DRM worked, that would be fine. But it doesn't, and indeed DRM on
downloadable music actually prevents it from being purchased. It is much
more convenient to use the illegally downloaded music than it is
purchased music, which is the fatal flaw of the industry.

If you want to purchase music, and use it digitally in any type of
reasonable fashion, you have to buy the CD. Not only does it cost you
money, but you have to run a ripping program as well. At that point you
have made the cost of obtaining one song so high -- both in money and in
work -- that people will stretch their morals.

I admit there's no "nice" solution to this problem. I despise things
like DRM, and the record-industry people are scumbags. I will
point-out, however, is that DRM came-along BECAUSE of rampant
thievery, NOT vice-versa.

All pontificating about how it *should* be this or that way is
meaningless. It is completely clear that RIAA will not stop illegal
downloading any time soon.

No disputing that...

Probably for the worse, with all the honest people losing-out, all
because of the scumbags.

And people who call others assholes and scumbags sound tough and macho
at the time they say it, and impress a few people, but they turn off the
vast majority. You won't win friends and influence people with that
attitude, and that's what you have to do.

Actually, I have to do no such thing. What I feel I have to do is
speak my mind, and I, for one, am sickened by the culture of piracy
and the negative repercussions, like DRM, that it has for honest
people.

RIAA has done a terrible job of PR from the beginning.

Their problem.

I believe the best that can be done is to price unprotected music
such that people will download it to comply with the law. It would
work for me, certainly, as I don't illegally download. And it would
allow me to have a better music collection. I go places where it seems
people have absolutely everything ever recorded. They come over to my
place and I have nothing in comparison.

I tried using one of the digital download things, but the DRM was so
ridiculous that I stopped buying after purchasing a hundred tracks or so.
Now I subscribe to Rhapsody, Sirius, and buy a few carefully selected
CDs. Pretty **** poor, but the best I can do.

I don't think that you and I are far-apart on these issues.

[[H]omer]

Verily I say unto thee, that chrisv spake thusly:

The fact that a movies has been broadcast on TV, does NOT give you
the right to own a pirated copy of the DVD. Nor should it.

Actually I have to disagree there.

When you purchase a DVD, you are not paying for ownership of a product
(other than material costs), you are merely paying for a license to view
the content.

When you pay your television license fee, and/or satellite subscription,
part of that goes towards the bulk licensing that the broadcaster pays
their content providers ... much of which is also available on DVD.
It's not called a "license" fee for nothing. You pay it ... you're licensed.

Therefore, and IMHO, if you record a film off television then you are
already licensed to view that content ... the medium is irrelevant.

You should thereafter be entitled to view that content /anywhere/
without further restriction, after all you've paid once for the licensed
permission to watch that content. How many times is one expected to pay
for the "right" to view the same content, exactly?

So in that sense, I believe that there is no moral contradiction in
downloading content that you have already been licensed to watch (or
listen to, in the case of music). If you've paid /once/, then the
balance sheet is settled. End of story.

Of course the devious method that content providers use to get around
this obvious flaw in their fleecing strategy, is that they say it is not
merely the content that is copyrighted, but the specific /recording/ of
that content, thus each and every remaster of a recording requires a new
license.

From the POV of the /law/, you are correct. E.g. downloading an mp3 of a
song, that you already paid for on CD, is still nonetheless illegal, but
.... IMHO the law is /wrong/ and indeed /immoral/. No one should ever
need to pay more than once for the same content ... ever. The current
system is a rip-off.

Live performances ... well that's something else. You're paying for
someone's actual time and effort. But the content providers have
perverted the idea of "performance" to include a "recording" of that
performance, and therefore expect us to pay for that same "performance"
each and every time we view it (or download it, or get it from a shop).
The time and effort to create that content only occurred /once/, but
we're expected to pay for that one-time "performance" over and over
again, like utter fools. It is literally a license to print money, and
it's a blatant scam.

--
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| "[Microsoft] are willing to lose money for years and years just to
| make sure that you don't make any money, either." - Bob Cringely.
| - http://blog.businessofsoftware.org/2...ly-the-un.html
`----

Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
15:15:00 up 71 days, 14:09, 2 users, load average: 0.08, 0.07, 0.07

[chrisv]

[H]omer wrote:

Therefore, and IMHO, if you record a film off television then you are
already licensed to view that content ... the medium is irrelevant.

Even if one the "priated" content is commercial-free and of higher
quality? Perhaps even widescreen vs pan-and-scan? Perhaps even
containing scenes that were cut or altered for the broadcast? How
about the "extras"?

I don't want to make this a hair-spitting contest. I think it's as
simple as this: Record the broadcast? Fine. Obtain the "equivalent"
elsewhere? Not fine.

I mean, think of the implications of Mark's stance. He claims that
every song and movie ever broadcast (ever made, essentially, though
obviously with delays for new movies) is free to grab and keep, from
anywhere you want. I think that's clearly wrong, personally.

[[H]omer]

Verily I say unto thee, that chrisv spake thusly:
[H]omer wrote:

Therefore, and IMHO, if you record a film off television then you
are already licensed to view that content ... the medium is
irrelevant.

Even if one the "pirated" content is commercial-free and of higher
quality? Perhaps even widescreen vs pan-and-scan?

Advertising is not a condition of viewer licensing, which pertains to
the copyrighted material only. The size, shape, colour, quality, and
aspect ratio are also irrelevant. If that specific version of that
production has been aired on television, and you are a license payer,
then you are licensed to view that content. IMHO that license /should/
be in perpetuity, but the content providers don't agree.

Perhaps even containing scenes that were cut or altered for the
broadcast?

Broadcast edits are made /after/ the /full/ production has already been
licensed to the broadcaster by the content provider, so from the POV of
the content provider, that license covers the unedited material. Your
rights are not limited by what the broadcaster /allows/ you to see, but
by the content provider's license by proxy through your broadcaster.

How about the "extras"?

DVD extras would not be covered by such a license, except in the very
unusual circumstances of their being broadcast on television (doubtful),
so no, you would not have any automatic right to "pirate" such material.
Not that the kind of copies that circulate on P2P usually carry the
"extras" material anyway.

I don't want to make this a hair-spitting contest. I think it's as
simple as this: Record the broadcast? Fine. Obtain the
"equivalent" elsewhere? Not fine.

I don't see why not ... it's the same material. You've been "permitted"
to see it once already, why should you have to pay again to see it a
second time? Remember ... you /did/ /pay/ at least once, with your
subscription/license. That is not theft. Moving images on a screen are
not tangible products, they are (to use that vulgar expression)
Intellectual Property, the legal right of access to which is governed by
licensing. Whether you are looking at an on-air broadcast, or holding a
DVD jewel case in your hand, what it is that you /paid/ for is an
invisible and intangible mandate called a license, nothing more. How you
choose to execute that mandate should be up to /you/.

Walking into a shop and stealing a DVD off the shelf is theft.

Downloading a film that you are not, and never have been licensed to
view, is copyright infringement.

Downloading a facsimile of a film that you have already been licensed to
view via your broadcast subscription, is neither theft nor copyright
infringement ... IMHO. Again, the content providers don't agree.

I mean, think of the implications of Mark's stance. He claims that
every song and movie ever broadcast (ever made, essentially, though
obviously with delays for new movies) is free to grab and keep, from
anywhere you want.

I don't agree with a statement as broad as that, because it implies that
I have a right to obtain facsimile copies of material that I could never
have had the opportunity to see via broadcast (I'm sure there are films
that are shown in foreign counties that have never aired in the UK, for
example).

But where a film, or any other content, has been aired via a broadcaster
with whom I do have a subscription, I /personally/ feel that I should
have the right to continue to view that content in perpetuity, in any
medium, in any format, on any device, in any location, and obtained from
any source ... all of which are irrelevant from the POV of what /should/
be my rights as a legal licensee of that material.

I think that's clearly wrong, personally.

You view it as theft. In Mark's overly broad interpretation, it can be.
In my more narrowly defined interpretation, it isn't ... IMO.

--
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| "[Microsoft] are willing to lose money for years and years just to
| make sure that you don't make any money, either." - Bob Cringely.
| - http://blog.businessofsoftware.org/2...ly-the-un.html
`----

Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
19:44:14 up 71 days, 18:39, 3 users, load average: 0.53, 0.55, 0.47

[Thufir]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:40:02 -0500, Mickey wrote:

If you want to purchase music, and use it digitally in any type of
reasonable fashion, you have to buy the CD. Not only does it cost you
money, but you have to run a ripping program as well. At that point you
have made the cost of obtaining one song so high -- both in money and in
work -- that people will stretch their morals.



Ditto.




-Thufir

[Thufir]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:50:45 -0500, chrisv wrote:

Music broadcast over the radio (regular radio definitely, maybe internet
radio) can be legally recorded only for personal use.

That's different from obtaining it "somewhere else" because it has been
broadcast.

Yes. Who's claiming that once a song is on the radio it's legal to
download the mp3 of that song from Limewire? There's no factual basis
for that claim; it's lunacy (and wishful thinking). It's a nuanced
argument which serves as justification for piracy.

Not that I would ever download music....



-Thufir

[Mark Kent]

Thufir espoused:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:19:16 -0500, chrisv wrote:

Let me get this straight. Once a song has been broadcast on a radio
station in, say, your local market, you feel that that gives you carte
blanche to obtain and keep, from any source available to you, a
recording of that song?

Music broadcast over the radio (regular radio definitely, maybe internet
radio) can be legally recorded only for personal use.


I think he's driving at the philosophical issue of broadcasting, which
is paid for by the broadcasters, as essentially advertising in order to
encourage other people to buy the same thing, paid for by themselves,
ideally over and over for every different format going.

The business model is, well, interesting.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |