http://dontbuycds.org/

[s76fitz]

http://dontbuycds.org/

--
fitz
in nyc, ny, usa

[mine12u]

"s76fitz" > wrote in message
...
> http://dontbuycds.org/
>
> --
> fitz
> in nyc, ny, usa

That is the largest pile of Horse**** I ever read!!!. This reminds me of the
paparazzi argument. (They got tunnel vision)

Then how about making "ALL" file downloads' bitrates 64kb/s or LESS. If it's
really the music your after, it shouldn't matter much to you if the bitrate
is reduced to far below radio quality but still decent enough....I mean,
you'll still get to hear the tune right??? And thats what matters right?
Then if you like it, buy the cd and these so-called facts stated in that
site will be valid.AND "Everybody wins". But right now.....with high bitrate
files and even full cd's available via internet download (for
free).....there has to be something done about it.

[Chris Rossi]

s76fitz > wrote in message >...
> http://dontbuycds.org/
>
Here's one that I like better:

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

Boycotting all cds is kind of throwing the baby out with the
bathwater. Boycotting RIAA releases potentially* sends a message to
the worst offenders. And there's no need to pirate anything, since
there's plenty of great music being made outside the RIAA umbrella.

A tool to figure it if that CD is a RIAA release:

http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/

There's probably plenty of good music out there being made for RIAA
member labels. But some potential fun side effect of a boycott are:

1) alerting your favorite artists and labels about real concerns
about riaa practices

2) motivation to dig around and find some of really good music on
non-RIAA labels that you might have missed otherwise.

rossi

* Do I really think enough people will climb on board to really "send
a message" to the RIAA. Not really. Most consumers don't really
care. I do think it helps to raise awareness, though.

[Andrea]

"mine12u" <123whatrweefitenfur> wrote in message >...
> "s76fitz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > http://dontbuycds.org/
> >
> > --
> > fitz
> > in nyc, ny, usa
>
> That is the largest pile of Horse**** I ever read!!!. This reminds me of the
> paparazzi argument. (They got tunnel vision)
>
> Then how about making "ALL" file downloads' bitrates 64kb/s or LESS.

I have no plans on limiting the bitrate on the files I create which I
own the copyright to, and any forceable limit, is a violation of my
copyright and first amendment rights of free speech. Nobody in thier
right mind would agree to sabotaging thier own art, by reducing the
resolution/bitrate/quality, just to suit you.

> If it's
> really the music your after, it shouldn't matter much to you if the bitrate
> is reduced to far below radio quality but still decent enough....I mean,
> you'll still get to hear the tune right??? And thats what matters right?
> Then if you like it, buy the cd and these so-called facts stated in that
> site will be valid.AND "Everybody wins". But right now.....with high bitrate
> files and even full cd's available via internet download (for
> free).....there has to be something done about it.

You alone are responsible for the selling of your music, your burden
doesn't extend to me. I'm not going to lower my bitrates, or produce
less free music, just to please your whim, and help you sell what you
cannot sell.
Andrea

[mine12u]

"Andrea" > wrote in message
om...
> "mine12u" <123whatrweefitenfur> wrote in message
>...
> > "s76fitz" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > http://dontbuycds.org/
> > >
> > > --
> > > fitz
> > > in nyc, ny, usa
> >
> > That is the largest pile of Horse**** I ever read!!!. This reminds me of
the
> > paparazzi argument. (They got tunnel vision)
> >
> > Then how about making "ALL" file downloads' bitrates 64kb/s or LESS.
>
> I have no plans on limiting the bitrate on the files I create which I
> own the copyright to, and any forceable limit, is a violation of my
> copyright and first amendment rights of free speech. Nobody in thier
> right mind would agree to sabotaging thier own art, by reducing the
> resolution/bitrate/quality, just to suit you.
>
> > If it's
> > really the music your after, it shouldn't matter much to you if the
bitrate
> > is reduced to far below radio quality but still decent enough....I mean,
> > you'll still get to hear the tune right??? And thats what matters right?
> > Then if you like it, buy the cd and these so-called facts stated in that
> > site will be valid.AND "Everybody wins". But right now.....with high
bitrate
> > files and even full cd's available via internet download (for
> > free).....there has to be something done about it.
>
> You alone are responsible for the selling of your music, your burden
> doesn't extend to me. I'm not going to lower my bitrates, or produce
> less free music, just to please your whim, and help you sell what you
> cannot sell.
> Andrea

, what ever blows up your dress!!!

Hey Dip ****, if you have your "own" material.....and wish to make higher
bitrate mp3's go ahead!!!! It's your decision, it's your right,......But,
"DO NOT" buy a cd of another artist and place that on the net for anyone and
everyone to download for FREE!! It is a VIOLATION of that artists rights!!!
And it's muther ****in Illegal! You dumb**** Muther ****er.


It stinks bad enough in here, and now the pile of horse**** is attracking
flies.

[mine12u]

"reddred" > wrote in message
...
>
> "LeBaron & Alrich" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > Andrea > wrote:
> >
> > > I have no plans on limiting the bitrate on the files I create which I
> > > own the copyright to, and any forceable limit, is a violation of my
> > > copyright
> >
> > Uhhh, Andrea? Could you please explain how that violates your
> > _copyright_? If you get airplay your music will meet a forced limit
> > right at the peak limiter in the broadcast chain. Are you suggesting
> > airplay would violate your copyright?
> >
>
> I think what the little flamer (mine12u) was suggesting was that there be
a
> LAW regarding bitrate. Kind of like a sign ordinance, I guess. I don't
know
> if it violates copyright law, but it seems like it would violate some
right
> or another.
>
> jb

No, it wouldn't violate anything!! If you write your songs, and put them
in....say.. Kazza for anyone to download....or your own website at highest
bitrate possible, or even 16/44>24/96 Thats fine!! Ok by me!!
No Problems what so ever!

"You" own that material. You have the right to do whatever you CHOOSE with
it..... BUT.....
Make a copy of the new LedZepplin DVD or just the soundtrack in the same
manner and your in trouble.
Thats what I'm talkin about. Making it LEGAL to copy these cd's and
distribute over the internet (like with Kazza) but make it a LAW that thier
bitrates MUST be limited. You'd still get to check out the album in full,
listen to it over and over,...forever if you so choose, but you have to
"buy" the cd to get the full sonic impact.

Same as seeing a trailer of a movie before the feature, Doesn't that violate
your rights?....not being able to see the movie in it's entirety? I mean,
they should just play the whole damn movie, RIGHT? I am sure THAT violates
my rights in someway....How "DARE" they put some trailer from some other
movie in the beginning of the feature...."I paid to see the featured movie
NOT the trailer"!!!

I am sure there will still be people burning copies of the real cd and
posting it on the net just like now, but at least the honest people (ones
who think they are) won't be violating any rights anymore by downloading the
low-biterated material. And....they STILL get to hear the songs. And then
make thier OWN decision whether to buy the cd or not. I don't see what the
problem with that is....Except that the whiney little pussy muther ****in
peon muther-****ers won't get thier WAY.

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Rob Adelman > wrote:

> Andrea wrote:
>
> > I have no plans on limiting the bitrate on the files I create which I
> > own the copyright to, and any forceable limit, is a violation of my
>
> Your plans don't really matter. This is about artists who actually have
> something people want to hear.

Knock it off, Rob. There are millions of people who would rather hear
new music produced and distributed independently rather than buy
another goddam copy of the White Album on the format du jour. Just
because your tastes run the gamut from bland to tired doesn't mean
everybody else's does. No offense. Andrea's very good point is that
people making new music with new ideas shouldn't get screwed over just
to protect the marketshare of their less adventurous competitors.

ulysses

[Rob Adelman]

Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:

> Just because your tastes run the gamut from bland to tired doesn't mean
> everybody else's does. No offense.

Why are you attacking my tastes? What do may tastes have to do with it?

The point is, it is not surprising that an artist with a track record
and an ability to sell records may have a much different opinion of
illegal file sharing than one who has never sold an album or few enough
to matter.

[deharmonic]

actually she was talking about legal file sharing, and mine12u said
that ALL files being shared should be bitrate limited....

There are artists who don't mind sharing their music - I wonder if
those artists also believe in performing music to make a living....

Rob Adelman > wrote in message >...
> Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:
>
> > Just because your tastes run the gamut from bland to tired doesn't mean
> > everybody else's does. No offense.
>
> Why are you attacking my tastes? What do may tastes have to do with it?
>
> The point is, it is not surprising that an artist with a track record
> and an ability to sell records may have a much different opinion of
> illegal file sharing than one who has never sold an album or few enough
> to matter.

[Andrea]

(Chris Rossi) wrote in message >...
> s76fitz > wrote in message >...
> > http://dontbuycds.org/
> >
> Here's one that I like better:
>
> http://www.boycott-riaa.com/
>
> Boycotting all cds is kind of throwing the baby out with the
> bathwater. Boycotting RIAA releases potentially* sends a message to
> the worst offenders. And there's no need to pirate anything, since
> there's plenty of great music being made outside the RIAA umbrella.
>
> A tool to figure it if that CD is a RIAA release:
>
> http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/
>
> There's probably plenty of good music out there being made for RIAA
> member labels. But some potential fun side effect of a boycott are:
>
> 1) alerting your favorite artists and labels about real concerns
> about riaa practices
>
> 2) motivation to dig around and find some of really good music on
> non-RIAA labels that you might have missed otherwise.
>
> rossi
>
> * Do I really think enough people will climb on board to really "send
> a message" to the RIAA. Not really. Most consumers don't really
> care. I do think it helps to raise awareness, though.

The magnetbox website is pretty good, I found out that one of my
favorite artists who hadn't released anything for a couple of years is
now RIAA-free and independant. The change is slow, but people are
coming around, and now getting the whole picture, and every question
about RIAA and lawsuits is an oppertunity to inform the public who
are now more receptive to the information.
Andrea

[Andrea]

(LeBaron & Alrich) wrote in message >...
> Andrea > wrote:
>
> > I have no plans on limiting the bitrate on the files I create which I
> > own the copyright to, and any forceable limit, is a violation of my
> > copyright
>
> Uhhh, Andrea? Could you please explain how that violates your
> _copyright_? If you get airplay your music will meet a forced limit
> right at the peak limiter in the broadcast chain. Are you suggesting
> airplay would violate your copyright?

Exactly how it violates an artists copyright is by putting limits on
distribution by limiting bitrate, that is taking away certain
distribution rights from the artist by this limitation, because
copyright gives the artist full distribution rights which I believe
includes any bitrate or technology that is available to me.

Hacking computers and interfering with P2P traffic by DOS attacks also
interfere's with the copyrights of artists who wish to use the
technology to distribute thier copyright, the interference of
ditribution is the copyright infringment, just as unauthorized copying
is technically infringement, so is interference of an authors
distribution, which is why the industry association tried to lobby
for the right to hack or attack networks, because they were afraid of
being sued for the copyright infringements and abuse of rights of
independant copyright authors.
Andrea

[Andrea]

"mine12u" <123whatrweefitenfur> wrote in message >...
> "reddred" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "LeBaron & Alrich" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > > Andrea > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have no plans on limiting the bitrate on the files I create which I
> > > > own the copyright to, and any forceable limit, is a violation of my
> > > > copyright
> > >
> > > Uhhh, Andrea? Could you please explain how that violates your
> > > _copyright_? If you get airplay your music will meet a forced limit
> > > right at the peak limiter in the broadcast chain. Are you suggesting
> > > airplay would violate your copyright?
> > >
> >
> > I think what the little flamer (mine12u) was suggesting was that there be
> a
> > LAW regarding bitrate. Kind of like a sign ordinance, I guess. I don't
> know
> > if it violates copyright law, but it seems like it would violate some
> right
> > or another.
> >
> > jb
>
> No, it wouldn't violate anything!! If you write your songs, and put them
> in....say.. Kazza for anyone to download....or your own website at highest
> bitrate possible, or even 16/44>24/96 Thats fine!! Ok by me!!
> No Problems what so ever!
>
> "You" own that material. You have the right to do whatever you CHOOSE with
> it..... BUT.....
> Make a copy of the new LedZepplin DVD or just the soundtrack in the same
> manner and your in trouble.
> Thats what I'm talkin about. Making it LEGAL to copy these cd's and
> distribute over the internet (like with Kazza) but make it a LAW that thier
> bitrates MUST be limited. You'd still get to check out the album in full,
> listen to it over and over,...forever if you so choose, but you have to
> "buy" the cd to get the full sonic impact.
>
> Same as seeing a trailer of a movie before the feature, Doesn't that violate
> your rights?....not being able to see the movie in it's entirety? I mean,
> they should just play the whole damn movie, RIGHT? I am sure THAT violates
> my rights in someway....How "DARE" they put some trailer from some other
> movie in the beginning of the feature...."I paid to see the featured movie
> NOT the trailer"!!!
>
> I am sure there will still be people burning copies of the real cd and
> posting it on the net just like now, but at least the honest people (ones
> who think they are) won't be violating any rights anymore by downloading the
> low-biterated material. And....they STILL get to hear the songs. And then
> make thier OWN decision whether to buy the cd or not. I don't see what the
> problem with that is....Except that the whiney little pussy muther ****in
> peon muther-****ers won't get thier WAY.

You called for a carte blanc limit on ALL file bitrate, and now you
are backpedaling.
Andrea

[mine12u]

"Andrea" > wrote in message
om...
> "mine12u" <123whatrweefitenfur> wrote in message
>...
> > "reddred" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "LeBaron & Alrich" > wrote in message
> > > .. .
> > > > Andrea > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I have no plans on limiting the bitrate on the files I create
which I
> > > > > own the copyright to, and any forceable limit, is a violation of
my
> > > > > copyright
> > > >
> > > > Uhhh, Andrea? Could you please explain how that violates your
> > > > _copyright_? If you get airplay your music will meet a forced limit
> > > > right at the peak limiter in the broadcast chain. Are you suggesting
> > > > airplay would violate your copyright?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think what the little flamer (mine12u) was suggesting was that there
be
> > a
> > > LAW regarding bitrate. Kind of like a sign ordinance, I guess. I don't
> > know
> > > if it violates copyright law, but it seems like it would violate some
> > right
> > > or another.
> > >
> > > jb
> >
> > No, it wouldn't violate anything!! If you write your songs, and put them
> > in....say.. Kazza for anyone to download....or your own website at
highest
> > bitrate possible, or even 16/44>24/96 Thats fine!! Ok by me!!
> > No Problems what so ever!
> >
> > "You" own that material. You have the right to do whatever you CHOOSE
with
> > it..... BUT.....
> > Make a copy of the new LedZepplin DVD or just the soundtrack in the same
> > manner and your in trouble.
> > Thats what I'm talkin about. Making it LEGAL to copy these cd's and
> > distribute over the internet (like with Kazza) but make it a LAW that
thier
> > bitrates MUST be limited. You'd still get to check out the album in
full,
> > listen to it over and over,...forever if you so choose, but you have to
> > "buy" the cd to get the full sonic impact.
> >
> > Same as seeing a trailer of a movie before the feature, Doesn't that
violate
> > your rights?....not being able to see the movie in it's entirety? I
mean,
> > they should just play the whole damn movie, RIGHT? I am sure THAT
violates
> > my rights in someway....How "DARE" they put some trailer from some other
> > movie in the beginning of the feature...."I paid to see the featured
movie
> > NOT the trailer"!!!
> >
> > I am sure there will still be people burning copies of the real cd and
> > posting it on the net just like now, but at least the honest people
(ones
> > who think they are) won't be violating any rights anymore by downloading
the
> > low-biterated material. And....they STILL get to hear the songs. And
then
> > make thier OWN decision whether to buy the cd or not. I don't see what
the
> > problem with that is....Except that the whiney little pussy muther
****in
> > peon muther-****ers won't get thier WAY.
>
> You called for a carte blanc limit on ALL file bitrate, and now you
> are backpedaling.
> Andrea

Wrong!!
I assumed you'd KNOW what I was refering to. (Music, illegal downloading) I
am just clarifiying was I meant when I said:

"Then how about making "ALL" file downloads' bitrates 64kb/s or LESS. If
it's
really the music your after, it shouldn't matter much to you if the bitrate
is reduced to far below radio quality but still decent enough....I mean,
you'll still get to hear the tune right??? And thats what matters right?"
(etc.etc.)

Thats what the subject was about, music and the unauthorized downloading
of...."Stealing". (Titiled: don't buy CD's......etc.etc.) And, 64kb/s was
just a number, could be any. But if the artist wanted to have his full 16/44
cd available for anyone to download, that be fine as well, just as long as
it's what they wanted. Guess there's really no way to control download
frenzies. But by making 64kb/s (or lower) mp3's the norm for downloading
unauthorized material, (frenzy type) the download frenzy would still go on,
but it would be legal.

The argument that these P2P/Kazza's promote new/old music for free will be
still be as valid as it was before, only it won't be the high quality cd
comparable bitrate's. Make the P2P's regulate thier traffic!! (or at least a
warning about what the user should/should-not do using the software) (???)
Just making the trading/sharing of the UNAUTHORIZED material w/higher-full
sample rates illegal and punishable. These P2P's could stay in business
without any worry, people could continue to "steal" without any worry. And
more people will buy the retail cd. But also, if the artist has a site where
thier music is available for free, then that would be totally fine as well.
It is thiers to do as they wish.

Indie bands = happy
Labels = happy
Artists = happy
Thieves = happy (to a certain extent)
General public = happy

How about some type of "PUNKBUSTER" software included in all media players?

[reddred]

"mine12u" <123whatrweefitenfur> wrote in message
...
>
> "Andrea" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "mine12u" <123whatrweefitenfur> wrote in message
> >...
> > > "reddred" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "LeBaron & Alrich" > wrote in message
> > > > .. .
> > > > > Andrea > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I have no plans on limiting the bitrate on the files I create
> which I
> > > > > > own the copyright to, and any forceable limit, is a violation of
> my
> > > > > > copyright
> > > > >
> > > > > Uhhh, Andrea? Could you please explain how that violates your
> > > > > _copyright_? If you get airplay your music will meet a forced
limit
> > > > > right at the peak limiter in the broadcast chain. Are you
suggesting
> > > > > airplay would violate your copyright?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think what the little flamer (mine12u) was suggesting was that
there
> be
> > > a
> > > > LAW regarding bitrate. Kind of like a sign ordinance, I guess. I
don't
> > > know
> > > > if it violates copyright law, but it seems like it would violate
some
> > > right
> > > > or another.
> > > >
> > > > jb
> > >
> > > No, it wouldn't violate anything!! If you write your songs, and put
them
> > > in....say.. Kazza for anyone to download....or your own website at
> highest
> > > bitrate possible, or even 16/44>24/96 Thats fine!! Ok by me!!
> > > No Problems what so ever!
> > >
> > > "You" own that material. You have the right to do whatever you CHOOSE
> with
> > > it..... BUT.....
> > > Make a copy of the new LedZepplin DVD or just the soundtrack in the
same
> > > manner and your in trouble.
> > > Thats what I'm talkin about. Making it LEGAL to copy these cd's and
> > > distribute over the internet (like with Kazza) but make it a LAW that
> thier
> > > bitrates MUST be limited. You'd still get to check out the album in
> full,
> > > listen to it over and over,...forever if you so choose, but you have
to
> > > "buy" the cd to get the full sonic impact.
> > >
> > > Same as seeing a trailer of a movie before the feature, Doesn't that
> violate
> > > your rights?....not being able to see the movie in it's entirety? I
> mean,
> > > they should just play the whole damn movie, RIGHT? I am sure THAT
> violates
> > > my rights in someway....How "DARE" they put some trailer from some
other
> > > movie in the beginning of the feature...."I paid to see the featured
> movie
> > > NOT the trailer"!!!
> > >
> > > I am sure there will still be people burning copies of the real cd and
> > > posting it on the net just like now, but at least the honest people
> (ones
> > > who think they are) won't be violating any rights anymore by
downloading
> the
> > > low-biterated material. And....they STILL get to hear the songs. And
> then
> > > make thier OWN decision whether to buy the cd or not. I don't see what
> the
> > > problem with that is....Except that the whiney little pussy muther
> ****in
> > > peon muther-****ers won't get thier WAY.
> >
> > You called for a carte blanc limit on ALL file bitrate, and now you
> > are backpedaling.
> > Andrea
>
> Wrong!!
> I assumed you'd KNOW what I was refering to. (Music, illegal downloading)
I
> am just clarifiying was I meant when I said:
>
> "Then how about making "ALL" file downloads' bitrates 64kb/s or LESS. If
> it's
> really the music your after, it shouldn't matter much to you if the
bitrate
> is reduced to far below radio quality but still decent enough....I mean,
> you'll still get to hear the tune right??? And thats what matters right?"
> (etc.etc.)
>
> Thats what the subject was about, music and the unauthorized downloading
> of...."Stealing". (Titiled: don't buy CD's......etc.etc.) And, 64kb/s was
> just a number, could be any. But if the artist wanted to have his full
16/44
> cd available for anyone to download, that be fine as well, just as long as
> it's what they wanted. Guess there's really no way to control download
> frenzies. But by making 64kb/s (or lower) mp3's the norm for downloading
> unauthorized material, (frenzy type) the download frenzy would still go
on,
> but it would be legal.
>
> The argument that these P2P/Kazza's promote new/old music for free will be
> still be as valid as it was before, only it won't be the high quality cd
> comparable bitrate's. Make the P2P's regulate thier traffic!! (or at least
a
> warning about what the user should/should-not do using the software) (???)
> Just making the trading/sharing of the UNAUTHORIZED material w/higher-full
> sample rates illegal and punishable. These P2P's could stay in business
> without any worry, people could continue to "steal" without any worry. And
> more people will buy the retail cd. But also, if the artist has a site
where
> thier music is available for free, then that would be totally fine as
well.
> It is thiers to do as they wish.
>
> Indie bands = happy
> Labels = happy
> Artists = happy
> Thieves = happy (to a certain extent)
> General public = happy
>
> How about some type of "PUNKBUSTER" software included in all media
players?
>

NO. Internet=sad. The future of the net has fewer central servers in it. The
refusal of media companies to secure their software has nothing to do with
it.

jb

[s76fitz]

Fri, 12 Sep 2003 15:19:02 GMT rec.audio.pro Fri 12 Sep 2003
11:19:02a

> http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

Yes,

Mo' Betta.

and thank you.

--
fitz
in nyc, ny, usa