Endangered Gizmos List [Archive]

Arny Krueger

January 25th 05, 11:05 PM

"Carl Valle" > wrote in message
. com
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> How many of these do you have?
>>
>> http://www.eff.org/endangered/
>>
>
> There are two sides to the copyright law. Ripping, Re-coding, media
> shifting, and file sharing do deprive artists and producers of money
> they would otherwise get if the media was obtained through retail
> channels.

Ripping and recoding, which is merely transcribing music from one medium to
another, deprive artists and producers of nothing that they deserve.

>They have a right to defend their bottom line.

They don't have the right to force people to pay for more than one license
to use music.

> There will
> be compromises but more than likely, the recording business will win
> back some of the rights they are losing to technologically enabled
> theft of intellectual property.

There is a legan and ethical difference between a person who moves a given
piece of music around from one device to another to listen to it, and one
who copies it for use by others.

> If you look at the sitaution the united states is in right now, where
> much of our exported and domestic productivity is derived from the
> marketing of intellectual property, including cultral products, we
> have much to lose as a society if copyrights are not enforced.

Ignorance of the concept of fair use, noted.

> How can we expect China for example to control the production of knockoff
> software, if we as americans think it's within our 'rights' to steal
> somebody else's work.

How is it stealing for me to copy some music I licensed to a portable device
so that I can listen to it?

Clyde Slick

January 26th 05, 12:14 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> How many of these do you have?
>
> http://www.eff.org/endangered/
>

About 30 obsolete sound cards. They cost me $30,000

Michael McKelvy

January 26th 05, 03:22 AM

"Carl Valle" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> How many of these do you have?
>>
>> http://www.eff.org/endangered/
>>
>
> There are two sides to the copyright law. Ripping, Re-coding, media
> shifting, and file sharing do deprive artists and producers of money they
> would otherwise get if the media was obtained through retail channels.
> They have a right to defend their bottom line. There will be compromises
> but more than likely, the recording business will win back some of the
> rights they are losing to technologically enabled theft of intellectual
> property.
>
> If you look at the sitaution the united states is in right now, where much
> of our exported and domestic productivity is derived from the marketing of
> intellectual property, including cultral products, we have much to lose as
> a society if copyrights are not enforced. How can we expect China for
> example to control the production of knockoff software, if we as americans
> think it's within our 'rights' to steal somebody else's work.
>
> Carl
>
If I copy a CD to tape to play in my car it's only because the copy will
sound better than the pre-recorded tape the record company wants to sell me.

If I copy it to my HD it's because I wish to listen there as well, I see no
reason to pay twice for the same music just because I want to put it on
multiple media.

I'm not selling off my copies to anyone and I'm not likely to by multiple
copies of a given album just to fatten the wallets of record company execs
and musicians. If they want to sell more stuff they should try encouraging
better music to be produced instead of the crap that's sells now.

Carl Valle

January 26th 05, 06:26 AM

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Carl Valle" > wrote in message
> . com...
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> How many of these do you have?
>>>
>>> http://www.eff.org/endangered/
>>>
>>
>> There are two sides to the copyright law. Ripping, Re-coding, media
>> shifting, and file sharing do deprive artists and producers of money they
>> would otherwise get if the media was obtained through retail channels.
>> They have a right to defend their bottom line. There will be compromises
>> but more than likely, the recording business will win back some of the
>> rights they are losing to technologically enabled theft of intellectual
>> property.
>>
>> If you look at the sitaution the united states is in right now, where
>> much of our exported and domestic productivity is derived from the
>> marketing of intellectual property, including cultral products, we have
>> much to lose as a society if copyrights are not enforced. How can we
>> expect China for example to control the production of knockoff software,
>> if we as americans think it's within our 'rights' to steal somebody
>> else's work.
>>
>> Carl
>>
> If I copy a CD to tape to play in my car it's only because the copy will
> sound better than the pre-recorded tape the record company wants to sell
> me.
>
> If I copy it to my HD it's because I wish to listen there as well, I see
> no reason to pay twice for the same music just because I want to put it on
> multiple media.
>
> I'm not selling off my copies to anyone and I'm not likely to by multiple
> copies of a given album just to fatten the wallets of record company execs
> and musicians. If they want to sell more stuff they should try
> encouraging better music to be produced instead of the crap that's sells
> now.
>
>
>
>
>

I will address your last point first. If the music is crap, why would you
buy it in the first place. There would certainly be no reason to copy music
that has no value to you. By the same token, the music companies produce
work that sells, so if it's crap, it's none the less crap people are wanting
to own.

Your other point on cassette tapes is probably a valid one since there are
at present no tapes being sold. But if you were to go the other way, to copy
a tape to a CD, you would be stealing because that product is being sold.

A few years ago, I might have agreed with your argument about copying music
to some kind of server or hard disc, however, this is also now being sold by
iTunes Music store and others. Again you are copying a product that you
should be paying for.

If you look at the OEM product that you purchased, you will notice that it
says "Any duplication is a violation of copyright." When you purchase a
music disc you implicitly agree to that restriction.

Now, with the passage of the SCMS and the royalty fees collected by RIAA on
blank tape, cassette recorders, consumer DAT machines, DAT tape (audio), CD
recorders (consumer) nd CD music disc blanks, you are authorized to make
copies within the limits of the SCMS system. This is one digital copy, but
no copy of a copy. Bypassing the SCMS, even by use of analog recording
methods is outside the permission granted. The question of analog copies of
analog copies is unclear, but presumably the quality levels suffer enough
that RIAA caved on it, or couldnt figure out how to enforce it.

RIAA is currently suing for copyright violations all over the place and most
people settle out of court so it isn't clear how far they can go. Does the
home taper need to fear, maybe not... I don't want my music collection to
be compromised by having a bunch of copied, stolen albums though, so maybe
I'm the dumb one, but I buy my stuff and display it proudly in my library. I
also don't own any crap...

Carl

Carl Valle

January 26th 05, 06:52 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Carl Valle" > wrote in message
> . com
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> How many of these do you have?
>>>
>>> http://www.eff.org/endangered/
>>>
>>
>> There are two sides to the copyright law. Ripping, Re-coding, media
>> shifting, and file sharing do deprive artists and producers of money
>> they would otherwise get if the media was obtained through retail
>> channels.
>
> Ripping and recoding, which is merely transcribing music from one medium
> to another, deprive artists and producers of nothing that they deserve.
>
>>They have a right to defend their bottom line.
>
> They don't have the right to force people to pay for more than one license
> to use music.
>
>> There will
>> be compromises but more than likely, the recording business will win
>> back some of the rights they are losing to technologically enabled
>> theft of intellectual property.
>
> There is a legan and ethical difference between a person who moves a
> given piece of music around from one device to another to listen to it,
> and one who copies it for use by others.
>
> > If you look at the sitaution the united states is in right now, where
>> much of our exported and domestic productivity is derived from the
>> marketing of intellectual property, including cultral products, we
>> have much to lose as a society if copyrights are not enforced.
>
> Ignorance of the concept of fair use, noted.
>
>> How can we expect China for example to control the production of
>> knockoff
>> software, if we as americans think it's within our 'rights' to steal
>> somebody else's work.
>
> How is it stealing for me to copy some music I licensed to a portable
> device so that I can listen to it?
>
>

You and I have been through this before Arnold.
It is illegal to take a copyrighted product and copy it to another media and
thus make two products. It's that simple.
You made two things to use and you only bought one license. Duh!
Now if you are talking about a MP3 player thing, you will notice that ITunes
and others now sell MP3 copies for those devices. So you are depriving those
artists of the income they derive by providing software legally for your
toy.
Fair Use has nothing to do with your argument because when you bought your
music carrier, you were totally aware of it's required player and the fact
that you couldn't copy it. The uses that you agree to by purchase are your
ONLY fair uses. This does not include the ability to migrate multiple copies
over multiple media. Especially since you are duplicating to a media which
the same (presuably) copyright holder also has exclusive rights to. Stealing
work is still stealing work even if you think the product you want costs to
much. I am not making this up, read the arguments that RIAA is using and
winning with. Perhaps you will be surprised as many are when they find out
just how few rights they have in copyright.
Carl

Arny Krueger

January 26th 05, 02:10 PM

"Carl Valle" > wrote in message
m

> RIAA is currently suing for copyright violations all over the place
> and most people settle out of court so it isn't clear how far they
> can go. Does the home taper need to fear, maybe not... I don't want
> my music collection to be compromised by having a bunch of copied,
> stolen albums though, so maybe I'm the dumb one, but I buy my stuff
> and display it proudly in my library. I also don't own any crap...

Sure, the RIAA is going after people who illegally mass-distribute stolen
music. That's fine with me. I have legal licenses to the music that I listen
to and I don't distrbute the music to anybody but me.

dave weil

January 26th 05, 02:28 PM

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 03:22:48 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"Carl Valle" > wrote in message
. com...
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> How many of these do you have?
>>>
>>> http://www.eff.org/endangered/
>>>
>>
>> There are two sides to the copyright law. Ripping, Re-coding, media
>> shifting, and file sharing do deprive artists and producers of money they
>> would otherwise get if the media was obtained through retail channels.
>> They have a right to defend their bottom line. There will be compromises
>> but more than likely, the recording business will win back some of the
>> rights they are losing to technologically enabled theft of intellectual
>> property.
>>
>> If you look at the sitaution the united states is in right now, where much
>> of our exported and domestic productivity is derived from the marketing of
>> intellectual property, including cultral products, we have much to lose as
>> a society if copyrights are not enforced. How can we expect China for
>> example to control the production of knockoff software, if we as americans
>> think it's within our 'rights' to steal somebody else's work.
>>
>> Carl
>>
>If I copy a CD to tape to play in my car it's only because the copy will
>sound better than the pre-recorded tape the record company wants to sell me.
>
>If I copy it to my HD it's because I wish to listen there as well, I see no
>reason to pay twice for the same music just because I want to put it on
>multiple media.
>
>I'm not selling off my copies to anyone and I'm not likely to by multiple
>copies of a given album just to fatten the wallets of record company execs
>and musicians. If they want to sell more stuff they should try encouraging
>better music to be produced instead of the crap that's sells now.

Making copies of personally owned material onto other media for
personal use isn't a violation of copyright laws unless the source
material is encrypted. This would mean that it's technically illegal
to make any copies of virtually all DVDs and legal to make copies of
virtually all CDs, LPs, or tapes.

So, media shifting is certainly legal and time-honored, as long as it
doesn't involve cracking some anti-copying device.

Of course, your mattress is also protected by law and woe be it onto
the person who rips that darn tag off. You'll soon hear that 3 am
knock on the door and your neighbors will never know why you and your
family disappeared from one day to the next.

Michael McKelvy

January 26th 05, 06:09 PM

"Carl Valle" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Carl Valle" > wrote in message
>> . com...
>>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> How many of these do you have?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.eff.org/endangered/
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are two sides to the copyright law. Ripping, Re-coding, media
>>> shifting, and file sharing do deprive artists and producers of money
>>> they would otherwise get if the media was obtained through retail
>>> channels. They have a right to defend their bottom line. There will be
>>> compromises but more than likely, the recording business will win back
>>> some of the rights they are losing to technologically enabled theft of
>>> intellectual property.
>>>
>>> If you look at the sitaution the united states is in right now, where
>>> much of our exported and domestic productivity is derived from the
>>> marketing of intellectual property, including cultral products, we have
>>> much to lose as a society if copyrights are not enforced. How can we
>>> expect China for example to control the production of knockoff software,
>>> if we as americans think it's within our 'rights' to steal somebody
>>> else's work.
>>>
>>> Carl
>>>
>> If I copy a CD to tape to play in my car it's only because the copy will
>> sound better than the pre-recorded tape the record company wants to sell
>> me.
>>
>> If I copy it to my HD it's because I wish to listen there as well, I see
>> no reason to pay twice for the same music just because I want to put it
>> on multiple media.
>>
>> I'm not selling off my copies to anyone and I'm not likely to by multiple
>> copies of a given album just to fatten the wallets of record company
>> execs and musicians. If they want to sell more stuff they should try
>> encouraging better music to be produced instead of the crap that's sells
>> now.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I will address your last point first. If the music is crap, why would you
> buy it in the first place.

I don't, that's the point. Most of what I buy is stuff that originally came
out 2-3 decades ago. There are some exceptions of course, but most of what
is popular today, for me is unlistenable.

There would certainly be no reason to copy music
> that has no value to you.

Nor do I.

By the same token, the music companies produce
> work that sells, so if it's crap, it's none the less crap people are
> wanting to own.
>
They have a target market. The 12 to 14 year olds. There seems to be little
product aimed at grown folks.

> Your other point on cassette tapes is probably a valid one since there are
> at present no tapes being sold. But if you were to go the other way, to
> copy a tape to a CD, you would be stealing because that product is being
> sold.
>
Sorry, I don't buy that argument. I paid for it once, if I wish to
transcribe it to another form of media, I think I have every right to do so.

> A few years ago, I might have agreed with your argument about copying
> music to some kind of server or hard disc, however, this is also now being
> sold by iTunes Music store and others. Again you are copying a product
> that you should be paying for.
>
In your opinion. Most software allows users to make copies for their own
use. If I were selling it to some other end user, that would be stealing,
as long as it's for my own use, I will not willingly pay for a copy.

> If you look at the OEM product that you purchased, you will notice that it
> says "Any duplication is a violation of copyright." When you purchase a
> music disc you implicitly agree to that restriction.
>
> Now, with the passage of the SCMS and the royalty fees collected by RIAA
> on blank tape, cassette recorders, consumer DAT machines, DAT tape
> (audio), CD recorders (consumer) nd CD music disc blanks, you are
> authorized to make copies within the limits of the SCMS system. This is
> one digital copy, but no copy of a copy. Bypassing the SCMS, even by use
> of analog recording methods is outside the permission granted. The
> question of analog copies of analog copies is unclear, but presumably the
> quality levels suffer enough that RIAA caved on it, or couldnt figure out
> how to enforce it.
>
That's the problem, the law is unenforceable without invasive measures.

> RIAA is currently suing for copyright violations all over the place and
> most people settle out of court so it isn't clear how far they can go.

Because they sue individuals who can't afford tofight back and IIRC most of
these involve downloads where nobody is paying for the copy.

Does the
> home taper need to fear, maybe not... I don't want my music collection to
> be compromised by having a bunch of copied, stolen albums though, so maybe
> I'm the dumb one, but I buy my stuff and display it proudly in my library.
> I also don't own any crap...

Crap is in the eye of the beholder.

I pay for my CD's and don't copy them for sale to anyone else. If I wish to
purchase a CD and copy it to several different formats, as long as they are
for my use the record companies can screw off.

Michael McKelvy

January 26th 05, 06:12 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 03:22:48 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Carl Valle" > wrote in message
. com...
>>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> How many of these do you have?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.eff.org/endangered/
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are two sides to the copyright law. Ripping, Re-coding, media
>>> shifting, and file sharing do deprive artists and producers of money
>>> they
>>> would otherwise get if the media was obtained through retail channels.
>>> They have a right to defend their bottom line. There will be compromises
>>> but more than likely, the recording business will win back some of the
>>> rights they are losing to technologically enabled theft of intellectual
>>> property.
>>>
>>> If you look at the sitaution the united states is in right now, where
>>> much
>>> of our exported and domestic productivity is derived from the marketing
>>> of
>>> intellectual property, including cultral products, we have much to lose
>>> as
>>> a society if copyrights are not enforced. How can we expect China for
>>> example to control the production of knockoff software, if we as
>>> americans
>>> think it's within our 'rights' to steal somebody else's work.
>>>
>>> Carl
>>>
>>If I copy a CD to tape to play in my car it's only because the copy will
>>sound better than the pre-recorded tape the record company wants to sell
>>me.
>>
>>If I copy it to my HD it's because I wish to listen there as well, I see
>>no
>>reason to pay twice for the same music just because I want to put it on
>>multiple media.
>>
>>I'm not selling off my copies to anyone and I'm not likely to by multiple
>>copies of a given album just to fatten the wallets of record company execs
>>and musicians. If they want to sell more stuff they should try
>>encouraging
>>better music to be produced instead of the crap that's sells now.
>
> Making copies of personally owned material onto other media for
> personal use isn't a violation of copyright laws unless the source
> material is encrypted.

At least not yet, it would be if the record companies had their way.

This would mean that it's technically illegal
> to make any copies of virtually all DVDs and legal to make copies of
> virtually all CDs, LPs, or tapes.
>
> So, media shifting is certainly legal and time-honored, as long as it
> doesn't involve cracking some anti-copying device.
>
Then I shouldn't have to pay extra for fees that go to record companies when
I buy blank media.

dave weil

January 26th 05, 08:19 PM

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:09:31 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>
> By the same token, the music companies produce
>> work that sells, so if it's crap, it's none the less crap people are
>> wanting to own.
>>
>They have a target market. The 12 to 14 year olds. There seems to be little
>product aimed at grown folks.

You're just not trying hard enough.

There's tons of interesting stuff out there right now.

dave weil

January 26th 05, 08:20 PM

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:09:31 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>> Your other point on cassette tapes is probably a valid one since there are
>> at present no tapes being sold. But if you were to go the other way, to
>> copy a tape to a CD, you would be stealing because that product is being
>> sold.
>>
>Sorry, I don't buy that argument. I paid for it once, if I wish to
>transcribe it to another form of media, I think I have every right to do so.

You do. Unless the CD is encrypted, your license allows you to to
transfer it to another medium for your own personal use (AFAIK).

You are also allowed to tape off of the radio as well.

dave weil

January 26th 05, 08:26 PM

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:12:09 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>> Making copies of personally owned material onto other media for
>> personal use isn't a violation of copyright laws unless the source
>> material is encrypted.
>
>At least not yet, it would be if the record companies had their way.
>
> This would mean that it's technically illegal
>> to make any copies of virtually all DVDs and legal to make copies of
>> virtually all CDs, LPs, or tapes.
>>
>> So, media shifting is certainly legal and time-honored, as long as it
>> doesn't involve cracking some anti-copying device.
>>
>Then I shouldn't have to pay extra for fees that go to record companies when
>I buy blank media.

Well, AFAIK, you aren't legally required to buy that media (it's
different in Canada I think). I don't think that ordinary "data" media
has that charge.

However, I don't think you should begrudge the songwriters that extra
quarter, or whatever it is. It's already dirt cheap for you to use
blank CD media. This is just a way to get some royalties to the
songwriter. I'm not sure if any of that fee goes to the record company
unless they own the copyright to the songs, but I could be wrong about
that. When you can get 50 blanks for $20 (and usually far cheaper on
special), I don't see the burden on the consumer.

Alex Rodriguez

January 26th 05, 10:30 PM

In article >,
says...

>RIAA is currently suing for copyright violations all over the place and most
>people settle out of court so it isn't clear how far they can go.

All of these are for stolen music. None invovle someone making copies of
music they already own.
--------------
Alex

Alex Rodriguez

January 26th 05, 10:34 PM

In article >,
says...
>
>
>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:09:31 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:
>
>>
>> By the same token, the music companies produce
>>> work that sells, so if it's crap, it's none the less crap people are
>>> wanting to own.
>>>
>>They have a target market. The 12 to 14 year olds. There seems to be little
>>product aimed at grown folks.
>
>You're just not trying hard enough.
>There's tons of interesting stuff out there right now.

How does one try harder? You could run out and buy a lot of crap until you
find the good stuff, but that only serves to encourage the record companies
to put out more crap. You could try listening to the radio, but most stations
only play 30 or so songs over and over again. It's not as easy as one would
think it would be. This is thanks to the few companies that own so many
stations that only play the same 30 or so songs on all their stations.
--------------
Alex

Michael McKelvy

January 26th 05, 11:06 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:09:31 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> By the same token, the music companies produce
>>> work that sells, so if it's crap, it's none the less crap people are
>>> wanting to own.
>>>
>>They have a target market. The 12 to 14 year olds. There seems to be
>>little
>>product aimed at grown folks.
>
> You're just not trying hard enough.
>
> There's tons of interesting stuff out there right now.

Dave, I live in the LA area and have every kind of music format available on
FM radio. I have my tuner set for everything that's broadcast in English.

I used to like Metal but these days it all sounds like people copying each
other.

I like lots of different kinds of rock, but can't stand hip-hop. I want
music with a melody.

I hear some country once in awhile that's fun.

I like some jazz, but they only jazz station I can get is also an NPR
station, KCLU, and when they play music I like a lot of what I hear.

Still, I was raised on top 40 radio in the 60's when you could go from Mitch
Ryder to the Beatles to the Supremes, the Stones, Aretha Franklin, the Four
Tops, the Beach Boys, Simon And Garfunkel, and on and on without changing
the station. There were only 2 in Seattle at the time playing rock n roll.

Now everything is a format and if you don't enjoy one particular format, the
odds of hearing anything new and good is kinda remote.

I used to subscribe to CD review magazine and they had a program of
inexpensive samplers to help promote indy labels and I miss them.

Hopefully pop music will come back to something where it's more about music
than about dance. I just can't see people sitting around listening to
Beyonce or MnM and waxing nostalgic the way my peers might over an old
Beatles track.

YMMV.

Lionel

January 26th 05, 11:17 PM

Michael McKelvy wrote:

[snip for brievety]

Have you already plundered the Archives ?

http://www.archive.org/audio/

Don't forget to purchase a large HD !!!

dave weil

January 27th 05, 09:50 AM

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:34:09 -0500, Alex Rodriguez >
wrote:

>In article >,
>says...
>>
>>
>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:09:31 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> By the same token, the music companies produce
>>>> work that sells, so if it's crap, it's none the less crap people are
>>>> wanting to own.
>>>>
>>>They have a target market. The 12 to 14 year olds. There seems to be little
>>>product aimed at grown folks.
>>
>>You're just not trying hard enough.
>>There's tons of interesting stuff out there right now.
>
>How does one try harder? You could run out and buy a lot of crap until you
>find the good stuff, but that only serves to encourage the record companies
>to put out more crap. You could try listening to the radio, but most stations
>only play 30 or so songs over and over again. It's not as easy as one would
>think it would be. This is thanks to the few companies that own so many
>stations that only play the same 30 or so songs on all their stations.
>--------------
>Alex

Frankly, I find out about great music by subscribing to a few selected
mailing lists for musicians that I really like. The three that I'm
currently subscribed to are populated by people whose taste in music
I've learned to generally trust for the most part. I've found out
about so much great music through those lists. I especially wait for
the inevitable top ten of the previous year lists that flourish about
this time of year. Sure, it takes a little work to read enough posts
to find out which posters you can trust for their opinion. But if
you're interested enough in a couple of artists, then the time spent
isn't a burden, because you'll enjoy talking about that artists with
others.

I also check out certain channels on Sirius Radio, since I get some of
their channels on Dish Network. There are some surprisingly
adventurous channels out there.

Also, I have the local college station (where I first heard one of my
fav albums of 2003, Transatlanticism by Death Cab For Cutie, for
example). You might not have that advantage though.

It also helps to go to a few shows, where you might catch someone like
Teitur opening up for Glenn Tilbrook. Teitur is from the Faroe Islands
and his debut album is just lovely (go to http://www.teitur.com/ and
get to the area where you can hear his music. If you don't fall in
love with the song Jospehine, then you've just got no heart).

Lowell George's daugher Inara, has a new album coming out soon. You
can hear the ENTIRE album streamed on her site until the release date:

www.inarageorge.com

Great album!

Also, there's just talking to friends who are into music. If you have
a cool independent record store in your town, you should befriend some
of the clerks, or even the owner. They'll turn you on to some great
stuff.

I don't know what kind of music you like, but some of the good things
that have come out recently (and even in the past couple of years)
are:

The Finn Brothers (the dudes from Crowded House and Split Enz)
Sondre Lerche
Elvis Costello (who also released a classical album simultaneously
with a rock album)
The Shins
The Pernice Brothers
Glenn Tilbrook (from Squeeze)
Jill Sobule
Joseph Arthur
Queens of the Stone Age
Ted Leo and The Pharmacists
Aimee Mann (her album Lost in Space is wonderful)
Modest Mouse
Elliot Smith
Wilco
Bjork
Todd Snider
Madonna (!)
Morissey
Ryan Adams
The Jayhawks
The Arcade Fire
R.L. Burnside
North Mississippi All-Stars
Jon Spenser Explosion
Shawn Colvin
The Darkness
Ron Sexsmith
The Fountains of Wayne
Jesse Sykes and the Sweet Hereafter
Nick Lowe
Nellie Mackay
Iris Dement
Phantom Planet
Drive-By Truckers
Neko Case
Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds
The Weakerthans
Venus Hum
Eytan Mirsky
Features
Los Lobos
Los Lonely Boys
Rufus Wainwright
Lucinda Williams
Holly Williams
Peter Himmelman
Jerry Douglas (the great dobro player released a great album a couple
of years ago that even has some fusion type stuff on it as well as a
guess appearance from James Taylor who wrote a great song for him).

And I didn't even mention the kitsch break out of last year, Franz
Ferdinand. Or even the new wave of retro groups like The Hives, The
Strokes and the like (which I haven't really warmed up to all that
much).

I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Sure, my list is weighted
heavily toward left-of-center pop, but I could add dozens of artists
in other genres.

You might not like a lot of these artists, but you can't complain that
they're homogenized and over-processed or aimed at 13 year olds. And,
guess what, it's really easy to check out many of these artists from
the comfort of your own home. Go to either Amazon or www.allmusic.com
.. Both of those sites have plenty of clips from virtually all of those
artists. Also, many of those artists have either clips or full songs
to preview on their own. Also, most of these artists have multiple
albums in the past couple of years worth checking out. Allmusic is
especially good for following connections once you find a group that
you like, because they have links to "related artists". And they know
their music.

No, there's no real excuse for finding out about new music. It's far
easier than in the past and I have no problem finding interesting
music. The problem I have is *buying* all of the great music that's
out there.

Carl Valle

January 27th 05, 09:58 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:12:09 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>> Making copies of personally owned material onto other media for
>>> personal use isn't a violation of copyright laws unless the source
>>> material is encrypted.
>>
>>At least not yet, it would be if the record companies had their way.
>>
>> This would mean that it's technically illegal
>>> to make any copies of virtually all DVDs and legal to make copies of
>>> virtually all CDs, LPs, or tapes.
>>>
>>> So, media shifting is certainly legal and time-honored, as long as it
>>> doesn't involve cracking some anti-copying device.
>>>
>>Then I shouldn't have to pay extra for fees that go to record companies
>>when
>>I buy blank media.
>
> Well, AFAIK, you aren't legally required to buy that media (it's
> different in Canada I think). I don't think that ordinary "data" media
> has that charge.
>
> However, I don't think you should begrudge the songwriters that extra
> quarter, or whatever it is. It's already dirt cheap for you to use
> blank CD media. This is just a way to get some royalties to the
> songwriter. I'm not sure if any of that fee goes to the record company
> unless they own the copyright to the songs, but I could be wrong about
> that. When you can get 50 blanks for $20 (and usually far cheaper on
> special), I don't see the burden on the consumer.

The deal is that if you copy msic onto a data CD then you are cracking a
anti copy device.
It's called SCMS and it is incorporated into all consumer digital decks to
protect the equipment manufacturer from lawsuits, not the individual...
The often cited Sony/Disney case was won by Sony, not the individual. Sony
argued that the VCR had legitimate uses and thus was not intended to be a
machine to steal programming. That is how they won.
Carl

dave weil

January 27th 05, 10:38 AM

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:58:05 GMT, "Carl Valle" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:12:09 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> Making copies of personally owned material onto other media for
>>>> personal use isn't a violation of copyright laws unless the source
>>>> material is encrypted.
>>>
>>>At least not yet, it would be if the record companies had their way.
>>>
>>> This would mean that it's technically illegal
>>>> to make any copies of virtually all DVDs and legal to make copies of
>>>> virtually all CDs, LPs, or tapes.
>>>>
>>>> So, media shifting is certainly legal and time-honored, as long as it
>>>> doesn't involve cracking some anti-copying device.
>>>>
>>>Then I shouldn't have to pay extra for fees that go to record companies
>>>when
>>>I buy blank media.
>>
>> Well, AFAIK, you aren't legally required to buy that media (it's
>> different in Canada I think). I don't think that ordinary "data" media
>> has that charge.
>>
>> However, I don't think you should begrudge the songwriters that extra
>> quarter, or whatever it is. It's already dirt cheap for you to use
>> blank CD media. This is just a way to get some royalties to the
>> songwriter. I'm not sure if any of that fee goes to the record company
>> unless they own the copyright to the songs, but I could be wrong about
>> that. When you can get 50 blanks for $20 (and usually far cheaper on
>> special), I don't see the burden on the consumer.
>
>The deal is that if you copy msic onto a data CD then you are cracking a
>anti copy device.
>It's called SCMS and it is incorporated into all consumer digital decks to
>protect the equipment manufacturer from lawsuits, not the individual...
>The often cited Sony/Disney case was won by Sony, not the individual. Sony
>argued that the VCR had legitimate uses and thus was not intended to be a
>machine to steal programming. That is how they won.
>Carl

First of all, if you burn a CD using your home PC, you are NOT
cracking any code. A computer is NOT considered a "recording device".
Yet. But beyond that, note the word *Serial* in the name of the code.
This theoretically prohibits *serial* copying, but doesn't prohibit
making a copy for your own private and personal use (in most cases).
Plus, it doesn't prevent you from making an *analog* copy such as a
cassette tape for your car. It's designed to prevent reproduction of
multiple "bit accurate" copies for distribution.

Second of all, the Sony decision DID alow individuals to time shift.
That much is clear. Otherwise, we wouldn't have 30 years of VCRs.

Third of all, the normal license doesn't preclude making a copy for
your personal use.

Arny Krueger

January 27th 05, 01:38 PM

"Carl Valle" > wrote in message
om
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> Carl, I've challenged you to properly document you claims before, and
>> you've responded with bluster and blunder, but zero relevant faqcts.
>> Wanna clean up your act this time?

> You are wrong about iTunes, you have to de-authorize your computer to
> move the files.

Carl I guess you don't know about the CD-burning features of iTunes. It's
kind of hard to de-authorize a burned CD, isn't it?

> I was referring actually to the fact that since the mp3 is
> available from a copyright holder, there is no longer defense in
> claiming that it is neccessary to copy the work in order to enjoy the
> formt.

A defense that is unecessary in the real world.

> If you violate the use agreement by making multiple copies, it
> is still a copyright violation.

There is no violation, so this is an irrelevant, not to mention bogus
comment.

> ITunes does not authorize copyright violations.

It can stop them.

> The music you purchase, which you claim gives you liscense, does not
> give you permission to make derivative copies. In fact the opposite
> is true.

Prove it Carl, an act that you've been incapable of accomplishing for the
better part of a year, now. Yawn.

> Evidence? How about the statement on the package label. "Any
> duplication of this recording is prohibited under copyright."

I just looked at a number of my CDs and found that as usual Carl, you're not
accurately quoting the statement that I found there.

> How about the FBI warning that is on all videotape and DVD. Does this
> not document my claim? What more do you need?

Lame attempt to drag in a debating trade red herring - discussion of video
in an audio thread, noted.

> Are you saying that the copyright notice on the recordings does not
> limit your rights to make derivatives? You are wrong. I don't need
> any more evidence than that.

Given how you've distorted the evidence that you're presenting Carl, I think
this discussion is over.

Arny Krueger

January 27th 05, 01:39 PM

"Carl Valle" > wrote in message
om

> The deal is that if you copy msic onto a data CD then you are
> cracking a anti copy device.

Carl I don't know about your weird rites, but I never copy msic onto data
CDs.

Joseph Oberlander

January 27th 05, 05:37 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Carl Valle" > wrote in message
> om
>
>
>>The deal is that if you copy msic onto a data CD then you are
>>cracking a anti copy device.
>
>
> Carl I don't know about your weird rites, but I never copy msic onto data
> CDs.

The day you get a MP3 capable CD player in your car - you'll
wonder why you didn't get one years before.

Arny Krueger

January 27th 05, 05:43 PM

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
ink.net

> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> "Carl Valle" > wrote in message
>> om

>>> The deal is that if you copy msic onto a data CD then you are
>>> cracking a anti copy device.

>> Carl I don't know about your weird rites, but I never copy msic onto
>> data CDs.

> The day you get a MP3 capable CD player in your car - you'll
> wonder why you didn't get one years before.

Joe I suspect you mean: "copy music onto data CDs".

I've been doing that for years - I have both a MP3-playing portable CD
player and a MP3-playing car CD player. I also have 2 MP3 playing
stand-alone DVD players, actually a recorder and a player. Then I have two
PCs with DVD burners and readers in them.

Valle is probably wondering why they don't just pack a Federal Court summons
with each MP3-capable optical disc player that is sold. LOL!

Michael McKelvy

January 27th 05, 07:07 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:09:31 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>> Your other point on cassette tapes is probably a valid one since there
>>> are
>>> at present no tapes being sold. But if you were to go the other way, to
>>> copy a tape to a CD, you would be stealing because that product is being
>>> sold.
>>>
>>Sorry, I don't buy that argument. I paid for it once, if I wish to
>>transcribe it to another form of media, I think I have every right to do
>>so.
>
> You do. Unless the CD is encrypted, your license allows you to to
> transfer it to another medium for your own personal use (AFAIK).
>
> You are also allowed to tape off of the radio as well.

Used to tape a lot of stuff off the radio, but it always sounded awful on
playback, compared to LP's, which is what was available at the time.

Someday I'll get a CD recorder and maybe that will be better, but for now,
I'll stick with buying CD's. Just ordered some from BMG, and I'm very
anxious to replace my stolen copy of Sooper Session, especially now that it
has been re-mastered.

Hopefully somebody will release a CD of Yamashta, Winwood, and Shrieve's GO.
Come to think of it I haven't searched for that one in a very long time.

Carl Valle

January 27th 05, 09:12 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:58:05 GMT, "Carl Valle" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:12:09 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Making copies of personally owned material onto other media for
>>>>> personal use isn't a violation of copyright laws unless the source
>>>>> material is encrypted.
>>>>
>>>>At least not yet, it would be if the record companies had their way.
>>>>
>>>> This would mean that it's technically illegal
>>>>> to make any copies of virtually all DVDs and legal to make copies of
>>>>> virtually all CDs, LPs, or tapes.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, media shifting is certainly legal and time-honored, as long as it
>>>>> doesn't involve cracking some anti-copying device.
>>>>>
>>>>Then I shouldn't have to pay extra for fees that go to record companies
>>>>when
>>>>I buy blank media.
>>>
>>> Well, AFAIK, you aren't legally required to buy that media (it's
>>> different in Canada I think). I don't think that ordinary "data" media
>>> has that charge.
>>>
>>> However, I don't think you should begrudge the songwriters that extra
>>> quarter, or whatever it is. It's already dirt cheap for you to use
>>> blank CD media. This is just a way to get some royalties to the
>>> songwriter. I'm not sure if any of that fee goes to the record company
>>> unless they own the copyright to the songs, but I could be wrong about
>>> that. When you can get 50 blanks for $20 (and usually far cheaper on
>>> special), I don't see the burden on the consumer.
>>
>>The deal is that if you copy msic onto a data CD then you are cracking a
>>anti copy device.
>>It's called SCMS and it is incorporated into all consumer digital decks to
>>protect the equipment manufacturer from lawsuits, not the individual...
>>The often cited Sony/Disney case was won by Sony, not the individual. Sony
>>argued that the VCR had legitimate uses and thus was not intended to be a
>>machine to steal programming. That is how they won.
>>Carl
>
> First of all, if you burn a CD using your home PC, you are NOT
> cracking any code. A computer is NOT considered a "recording device".
> Yet. But beyond that, note the word *Serial* in the name of the code.
> This theoretically prohibits *serial* copying, but doesn't prohibit
> making a copy for your own private and personal use (in most cases).
> Plus, it doesn't prevent you from making an *analog* copy such as a
> cassette tape for your car. It's designed to prevent reproduction of
> multiple "bit accurate" copies for distribution.
>
> Second of all, the Sony decision DID alow individuals to time shift.
> That much is clear. Otherwise, we wouldn't have 30 years of VCRs.
>
> Third of all, the normal license doesn't preclude making a copy for
> your personal use.
>
>

Copy on a computer with a data disc avoids payment of the royalty which is
the vehicle of the protection from prosecution.
At any rate, since there is no royalty on computer drives paid, and since
they don't conform to SCMS by design, there is no protection, thus the old
law applies and thus any copy is an infringement.

There is no liscense granted by the purchase of a music software that allows
any copying of any kind.

Time shifting is different issue because you do not have to buy the original
source to enjoy it's use.
Time shifting a rented videotape for example, is illegal.
The main reason, believe it or not, that we have VCR for 30 years is the
fact that it is not only a recorder, but also the only player up until a few
years ago, that the public had to enjoy the benefits of buying and renting
movies etc.
Carl

Carl Valle

January 27th 05, 09:33 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
> ink.net
>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>> "Carl Valle" > wrote in message
>>> om
>
>>>> The deal is that if you copy msic onto a data CD then you are
>>>> cracking a anti copy device.
>
>>> Carl I don't know about your weird rites, but I never copy msic onto
>>> data CDs.
>
>> The day you get a MP3 capable CD player in your car - you'll
>> wonder why you didn't get one years before.
>
> Joe I suspect you mean: "copy music onto data CDs".
>
> I've been doing that for years - I have both a MP3-playing portable CD
> player and a MP3-playing car CD player. I also have 2 MP3 playing
> stand-alone DVD players, actually a recorder and a player. Then I have two
> PCs with DVD burners and readers in them.
>
> Valle is probably wondering why they don't just pack a Federal Court
> summons with each MP3-capable optical disc player that is sold. LOL!
>

The fact that the product exists does not mean using it is legal.
All the arguments you have made simply establish motive and method.
Arny says he doesn't think that he should have to pay to enjoy the benefits
of enjoying music in a new format, and yet a major part of the recording
business is providing re-issue of back catalog on new format.
It is as simple as it sounds. The rights to the revenues derived from the
production of copyrighted materials belong to the copyright holders. The
fact that you are not prosecuted does not legitimize the act.
Not everybody who is speeding gets a ticket.
Carl

Carl Valle

January 27th 05, 09:40 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Carl Valle" > wrote in message
> om
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>> Carl, I've challenged you to properly document you claims before, and
>>> you've responded with bluster and blunder, but zero relevant faqcts.
>>> Wanna clean up your act this time?
>
>> You are wrong about iTunes, you have to de-authorize your computer to
>> move the files.
>
> Carl I guess you don't know about the CD-burning features of iTunes. It's
> kind of hard to de-authorize a burned CD, isn't it?
>
>> I was referring actually to the fact that since the mp3 is
>> available from a copyright holder, there is no longer defense in
>> claiming that it is neccessary to copy the work in order to enjoy the
>> formt.
>
> A defense that is unecessary in the real world.
>
>> If you violate the use agreement by making multiple copies, it
>> is still a copyright violation.
>
> There is no violation, so this is an irrelevant, not to mention bogus
> comment.
>
>> ITunes does not authorize copyright violations.
>
> It can stop them.
>
>> The music you purchase, which you claim gives you liscense, does not
>> give you permission to make derivative copies. In fact the opposite
>> is true.
>
> Prove it Carl, an act that you've been incapable of accomplishing for the
> better part of a year, now. Yawn.
>
>> Evidence? How about the statement on the package label. "Any
>> duplication of this recording is prohibited under copyright."
>
> I just looked at a number of my CDs and found that as usual Carl, you're
> not accurately quoting the statement that I found there.
>
>> How about the FBI warning that is on all videotape and DVD. Does this
>> not document my claim? What more do you need?
>
> Lame attempt to drag in a debating trade red herring - discussion of video
> in an audio thread, noted.
>
>> Are you saying that the copyright notice on the recordings does not
>> limit your rights to make derivatives? You are wrong. I don't need
>> any more evidence than that.
>
> Given how you've distorted the evidence that you're presenting Carl, I
> think this discussion is over.
>
>
>

You think?
The discussion is over because you can't face the fact that you are wrong.
You cannot provide a single example of a license for a music product that
gives you the right to copy it.
Carl

Carl Valle

January 27th 05, 10:05 PM

"Carl Valle" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Carl Valle" > wrote in message
>> om
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>> Carl, I've challenged you to properly document you claims before, and
>>>> you've responded with bluster and blunder, but zero relevant faqcts.
>>>> Wanna clean up your act this time?
>>
>>> You are wrong about iTunes, you have to de-authorize your computer to
>>> move the files.
>>
>> Carl I guess you don't know about the CD-burning features of iTunes. It's
>> kind of hard to de-authorize a burned CD, isn't it?
>>
>>> I was referring actually to the fact that since the mp3 is
>>> available from a copyright holder, there is no longer defense in
>>> claiming that it is neccessary to copy the work in order to enjoy the
>>> formt.
>>
>> A defense that is unecessary in the real world.
>>
>>> If you violate the use agreement by making multiple copies, it
>>> is still a copyright violation.
>>
>> There is no violation, so this is an irrelevant, not to mention bogus
>> comment.
>>
>>> ITunes does not authorize copyright violations.
>>
>> It can stop them.
>>
>>> The music you purchase, which you claim gives you liscense, does not
>>> give you permission to make derivative copies. In fact the opposite
>>> is true.
>>
>> Prove it Carl, an act that you've been incapable of accomplishing for the
>> better part of a year, now. Yawn.
>>
>>> Evidence? How about the statement on the package label. "Any
>>> duplication of this recording is prohibited under copyright."
>>
>> I just looked at a number of my CDs and found that as usual Carl, you're
>> not accurately quoting the statement that I found there.
>>
>>> How about the FBI warning that is on all videotape and DVD. Does this
>>> not document my claim? What more do you need?
>>
>> Lame attempt to drag in a debating trade red herring - discussion of
>> video in an audio thread, noted.
>>
>>> Are you saying that the copyright notice on the recordings does not
>>> limit your rights to make derivatives? You are wrong. I don't need
>>> any more evidence than that.
>>
>> Given how you've distorted the evidence that you're presenting Carl, I
>> think this discussion is over.
>>
>>
>>
>
> You think?
> The discussion is over because you can't face the fact that you are wrong.
> You cannot provide a single example of a license for a music product that
> gives you the right to copy it.
> Carl
>
>

For the record -

off the back of Elektra 7559-61135-4
(C) 1992 Elektra Div. Warner Communications
All Rights Reserved
Warning: Unauthorized reproduction of this recording is prohibited by
Federal law and subject to criminal prosecution

Carl

Clyde Slick

January 27th 05, 10:38 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Carl Valle" > wrote in message
> om
>
>> The deal is that if you copy msic onto a data CD then you are
>> cracking a anti copy device.
>
> Carl I don't know about your weird rites, but I never copy msic onto data
> CDs.
>
>
Arny copies misc onto flattened turds.

Clyde Slick

January 27th 05, 10:40 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Valle is probably wondering why they don't just pack a Federal Court
> summons with each MP3-capable optical disc player that is sold. LOL!
>

If you are running low, we can arrange to
have one sent to you.

Clyde Slick

January 27th 05, 10:42 PM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Doofy Krooberlander said:
>
>> The day you get a MP3 capable CD player in your car - you'll
>> wonder why you didn't get one years before.
>
> Don't be so crass. Turdborg is still perfecting his design for a car that
> runs on you-know-what.
>
It could be his very first money making idea. He would
corner the market on fuel supplies. He would have to be made the head of
SPEI

Joseph Oberlander

January 28th 05, 01:53 AM

Carl Valle wrote:

> Copy on a computer with a data disc avoids payment of the royalty which is
> the vehicle of the protection from prosecution.
> At any rate, since there is no royalty on computer drives paid, and since
> they don't conform to SCMS by design, there is no protection, thus the old
> law applies and thus any copy is an infringement.

Wrong - the old OLD law covering LP and Tapes is in effect - that
is, you can make copies of stuff you already bought as a backup.

You buy the CD, you can play it, MP3 it, or use it as target
practice.

Joseph Oberlander

January 28th 05, 01:54 AM

Clyde Slick wrote:

> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Doofy Krooberlander said:
>>
>>
>>>The day you get a MP3 capable CD player in your car - you'll
>>>wonder why you didn't get one years before.
>>
>>Don't be so crass. Turdborg is still perfecting his design for a car that
>>runs on you-know-what.
>>
>
> It could be his very first money making idea. He would
> corner the market on fuel supplies. He would have to be made the head of
> SPEI

"Oh - sorry - have to refill the tank - be back in a minute..."

Ruud Broens

January 28th 05, 02:41 AM

"Carl Valle" > wrote in message
om...
: For the record -
:
: off the back of Elektra 7559-61135-4
: (C) 1992 Elektra Div. Warner Communications
: All Rights Reserved
: Warning: Unauthorized reproduction of this recording is prohibited by
: Federal law and subject to criminal prosecution
:
: Carl
:
But surely there should be some discussion on the subject !
If someone buys a painting, subsequently has a copy made,
eg. to store the original in a very safe place, display the copied work,
how could that be any kind of violation ?
not many complaints in the art world over such 'practices', i presume.

Some computer software licenses now allow for installation on
both a laptop and a desktop computer, as they are unlikely to be run
simultaniously, running that particular software
and what is paid for is the functionality

Why would the music & film industry have copyright extended to the
carrier ?

weekend musings,
to come,
Rudy

Michael McKelvy

January 28th 05, 06:36 AM

"Carl Valle" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
>> ink.net
>>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>>> "Carl Valle" > wrote in message
>>>> om
>>
>>>>> The deal is that if you copy msic onto a data CD then you are
>>>>> cracking a anti copy device.
>>
>>>> Carl I don't know about your weird rites, but I never copy msic onto
>>>> data CDs.
>>
>>> The day you get a MP3 capable CD player in your car - you'll
>>> wonder why you didn't get one years before.
>>
>> Joe I suspect you mean: "copy music onto data CDs".
>>
>> I've been doing that for years - I have both a MP3-playing portable CD
>> player and a MP3-playing car CD player. I also have 2 MP3 playing
>> stand-alone DVD players, actually a recorder and a player. Then I have
>> two PCs with DVD burners and readers in them.
>>
>> Valle is probably wondering why they don't just pack a Federal Court
>> summons with each MP3-capable optical disc player that is sold. LOL!
>>
>
> The fact that the product exists does not mean using it is legal.
> All the arguments you have made simply establish motive and method.
> Arny says he doesn't think that he should have to pay to enjoy the
> benefits of enjoying music in a new format, and yet a major part of the
> recording business is providing re-issue of back catalog on new format.
> It is as simple as it sounds. The rights to the revenues derived from the
> production of copyrighted materials belong to the copyright holders. The
> fact that you are not prosecuted does not legitimize the act.
> Not everybody who is speeding gets a ticket.
> Carl
>
>
Unless you can quote the Federal law that makes it a crime to make copies of
something you already paid for, and that is intended only for use by the
original purchaser, I will maintain you are wrong. You can not make copies
to sell or even give away, but you can make them for your own personal use.

dave weil

January 28th 05, 07:39 AM

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:12:51 GMT, "Carl Valle" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:58:05 GMT, "Carl Valle" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:12:09 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Making copies of personally owned material onto other media for
>>>>>> personal use isn't a violation of copyright laws unless the source
>>>>>> material is encrypted.
>>>>>
>>>>>At least not yet, it would be if the record companies had their way.
>>>>>
>>>>> This would mean that it's technically illegal
>>>>>> to make any copies of virtually all DVDs and legal to make copies of
>>>>>> virtually all CDs, LPs, or tapes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, media shifting is certainly legal and time-honored, as long as it
>>>>>> doesn't involve cracking some anti-copying device.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Then I shouldn't have to pay extra for fees that go to record companies
>>>>>when
>>>>>I buy blank media.
>>>>
>>>> Well, AFAIK, you aren't legally required to buy that media (it's
>>>> different in Canada I think). I don't think that ordinary "data" media
>>>> has that charge.
>>>>
>>>> However, I don't think you should begrudge the songwriters that extra
>>>> quarter, or whatever it is. It's already dirt cheap for you to use
>>>> blank CD media. This is just a way to get some royalties to the
>>>> songwriter. I'm not sure if any of that fee goes to the record company
>>>> unless they own the copyright to the songs, but I could be wrong about
>>>> that. When you can get 50 blanks for $20 (and usually far cheaper on
>>>> special), I don't see the burden on the consumer.
>>>
>>>The deal is that if you copy msic onto a data CD then you are cracking a
>>>anti copy device.
>>>It's called SCMS and it is incorporated into all consumer digital decks to
>>>protect the equipment manufacturer from lawsuits, not the individual...
>>>The often cited Sony/Disney case was won by Sony, not the individual. Sony
>>>argued that the VCR had legitimate uses and thus was not intended to be a
>>>machine to steal programming. That is how they won.
>>>Carl
>>
>> First of all, if you burn a CD using your home PC, you are NOT
>> cracking any code. A computer is NOT considered a "recording device".
>> Yet. But beyond that, note the word *Serial* in the name of the code.
>> This theoretically prohibits *serial* copying, but doesn't prohibit
>> making a copy for your own private and personal use (in most cases).
>> Plus, it doesn't prevent you from making an *analog* copy such as a
>> cassette tape for your car. It's designed to prevent reproduction of
>> multiple "bit accurate" copies for distribution.
>>
>> Second of all, the Sony decision DID alow individuals to time shift.
>> That much is clear. Otherwise, we wouldn't have 30 years of VCRs.
>>
>> Third of all, the normal license doesn't preclude making a copy for
>> your personal use.
>>
>>
>
>Copy on a computer with a data disc avoids payment of the royalty which is
>the vehicle of the protection from prosecution.

A computer is not classed as a recording device under the law and
therefore is not subject to royalties.

>At any rate, since there is no royalty on computer drives paid, and since
>they don't conform to SCMS by design, there is no protection, thus the old
>law applies and thus any copy is an infringement.

This is incorrect. There is no law against making an additional copy
for personal use. The law protects against distribution.

>There is no liscense granted by the purchase of a music software that allows
>any copying of any kind.

You need to check out the section in Title 17 of the Audio Home
Recording Act (AHRA) (P.L. 102-
563, 106 Stat. 4237, codified at 17 U.S.C. 1001 - 1010)

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement
of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or
distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital
audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an
analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a
consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical
recordings or analog musical recordings.

17 U.S.C. 1008.

>Time shifting is different issue because you do not have to buy the original
>source to enjoy it's use.
>Time shifting a rented videotape for example, is illegal.
>The main reason, believe it or not, that we have VCR for 30 years is the
>fact that it is not only a recorder, but also the only player up until a few
>years ago, that the public had to enjoy the benefits of buying and renting
>movies etc.

No, we still have them because the courts allowed them. So no, I don't
believe you. It would have been simple to require them to be playback
only, and actually, it almost came to that.