Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

RIAA sues dead woman

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 10:16:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-odd-...

Dam file swappers. They must be stopped dead or alive... ;) 
I suppose you could run a server 6 foot underground.


Bob

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-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 =----

More about : riaa sues dead woman

Anonymous
February 6, 2005 2:20:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 19:16:18 -0600, Bob Urz <sound@inetnebr.com>
wrote:

>http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-odd-...
>
>Dam file swappers. They must be stopped dead or alive... ;) 
>I suppose you could run a server 6 foot underground.

Not sure I'd answer any tech support calls for it, though...
jtougas

listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door
let's go

e.e. cummings
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 7:36:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Bob Urz wrote:

> Dam file swappers. They must be stopped dead or alive... ;) 
> I suppose you could run a server 6 foot underground.

She should've known better! <g>

--
ha
Related resources
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 9:00:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Bob Urz" <sound@inetnebr.com> wrote in message
news:4205707e$1_1@127.0.0.1...
> http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-odd-...
>
> Dam file swappers. They must be stopped dead or alive... ;) 
> I suppose you could run a server 6 foot underground.
>
>

Yeah, but talk about latency issues! lol
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 1:42:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Here in Canada, a person can be sued for distributing music, without
permission. It is also illegal to make a backup copy for yourself, without
having written permission from the authors, or representatives of the
authors. Apparently, they are very strict over here when it comes to the
distribution of music, or any written materials.

If in the event if a person commits a crime, and then passes away (dies),
and they are found out, the courts can then come after the estate of that
person, for any financial restitution.

Anyone who is making any claim to be accepted in a deceased person's will,
and the deceased is owing to debts of any kind, the claimant will have to
make their share of payments to satisfy any debts or restitution.

In simple words, if you accept to take any money, or payment of any kind
from any estate where you were left in a will, or given anything from the
estate, you then also become part of any debts of that estate, according to
the share value that you are in acceptance with.

There was an instance near where I live, where a private pilot flew his
airplane (Cessna) in to a communications tower. He was killed by the crash.
The tower fell down, and was damaged beyond repair. The owners of the tower
made a big lawsuit against the family of that pilot, for the difference that
his insurance would not pay. His insurance policy that he carried, only paid
out the firs million.

I have not heard the results from this one. I only was told by another
person, that the owners of the tower may not persue this. The total lawsuit
was in the order of 7 million dollars. This also included lost revenue that
they were getting from customers.

If you ever get in to an accident of any kind, and the other person tells
you not to worry, you are best to protect yourself from any possible
recourse. They can tell you to never mind, and we can forget it ever
happened. Whatever they tell you that sounds good, get it in writing with
his or hers, and your signature. If it is possible to have an independent
person sign as a witness if they saw anything. If things are not done
properly to protect yourself, anyone can change their mind.

--

Jerry G.
=====

"Bob Urz" <sound@inetnebr.com> wrote in message
news:4205707e$1_1@127.0.0.1...
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-odd-...

Dam file swappers. They must be stopped dead or alive... ;) 
I suppose you could run a server 6 foot underground.


Bob

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-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 =----
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 10:30:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

After reading this I think it's apparent that the RIAA should drop all of
it's efforts to sue people for trading music. While I don't believe in
copyright infringments, I also think this shows that no matter what "paper
trail" RIAA thinks they have to electronically corner perps it's not good
enough when an 83 year old dead woman who never owned a computer gets sued.
Kinda like the 1% of all death row inmates who are innocent. If you have
any level of innocence in even one case, the courts should throw RIAA out on
their ass. Talk about frivolous lawsuits.

And I'd like them out of our congresspeople's pockets, too.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Bob Urz" <sound@inetnebr.com> wrote in message
news:4205707e$1_1@127.0.0.1...
>
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-odd-...
>
> Dam file swappers. They must be stopped dead or alive... ;) 
> I suppose you could run a server 6 foot underground.
>
>
> Bob
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-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
=----
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 10:32:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Well, that's pretty much true in the US, too. That's why we have probate.
It puts the estate up for making certain that debts and liens are paid
before the estate gets distributed and can no longer make amends.

Happen to be going through that process right now. Not the RIAA suit thing.
The estate thing.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Jerry G." <jerryg50@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36o6sfF53oeh7U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Here in Canada, a person can be sued for distributing music, without
> permission. It is also illegal to make a backup copy for yourself, without
> having written permission from the authors, or representatives of the
> authors. Apparently, they are very strict over here when it comes to the
> distribution of music, or any written materials.
>
> If in the event if a person commits a crime, and then passes away (dies),
> and they are found out, the courts can then come after the estate of that
> person, for any financial restitution.
>
> Anyone who is making any claim to be accepted in a deceased person's will,
> and the deceased is owing to debts of any kind, the claimant will have to
> make their share of payments to satisfy any debts or restitution.
>
> In simple words, if you accept to take any money, or payment of any kind
> from any estate where you were left in a will, or given anything from the
> estate, you then also become part of any debts of that estate, according
to
> the share value that you are in acceptance with.
>
> There was an instance near where I live, where a private pilot flew his
> airplane (Cessna) in to a communications tower. He was killed by the
crash.
> The tower fell down, and was damaged beyond repair. The owners of the
tower
> made a big lawsuit against the family of that pilot, for the difference
that
> his insurance would not pay. His insurance policy that he carried, only
paid
> out the firs million.
>
> I have not heard the results from this one. I only was told by another
> person, that the owners of the tower may not persue this. The total
lawsuit
> was in the order of 7 million dollars. This also included lost revenue
that
> they were getting from customers.
>
> If you ever get in to an accident of any kind, and the other person tells
> you not to worry, you are best to protect yourself from any possible
> recourse. They can tell you to never mind, and we can forget it ever
> happened. Whatever they tell you that sounds good, get it in writing with
> his or hers, and your signature. If it is possible to have an independent
> person sign as a witness if they saw anything. If things are not done
> properly to protect yourself, anyone can change their mind.
>
> --
>
> Jerry G.
> =====
>
> "Bob Urz" <sound@inetnebr.com> wrote in message
> news:4205707e$1_1@127.0.0.1...
>
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-odd-...
>
> Dam file swappers. They must be stopped dead or alive... ;) 
> I suppose you could run a server 6 foot underground.
>
>
> Bob
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-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
=----
>
>
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 11:12:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Roger W. Norman wrote:
> After reading this I think it's apparent that the RIAA should drop all of
> it's efforts to sue people for trading music. While I don't believe in
> copyright infringments, I also think this shows that no matter what "paper
> trail" RIAA thinks they have to electronically corner perps it's not good
> enough when an 83 year old dead woman who never owned a computer gets sued.
> Kinda like the 1% of all death row inmates who are innocent. If you have
> any level of innocence in even one case, the courts should throw RIAA out on
> their ass. Talk about frivolous lawsuits.
>
> And I'd like them out of our congresspeople's pockets, too.
>
First paragraph agreed. Last sentence about congress there is a
problem. You'll never be able to find the RIAA in those pockets with
the other thousands of special interests in there with them.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 6:00:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 07:30:11 -0500, "Roger W. Norman"
<rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:

>After reading this I think it's apparent that the RIAA should drop all of
>it's efforts to sue people for trading music. While I don't believe in
>copyright infringments, I also think this shows that no matter what "paper
>trail" RIAA thinks they have to electronically corner perps it's not good
>enough when an 83 year old dead woman who never owned a computer gets sued.
>Kinda like the 1% of all death row inmates who are innocent. If you have
>any level of innocence in even one case, the courts should throw RIAA out on
>their ass. Talk about frivolous lawsuits.

Sorry? Because ONE case proves unfounded, ALL cases of that type are
outlawed? Because there's ONE blind, bent or merely mistaken
traffic cop, there will be NO more tickets?

Your agenda is getting seriously in the way of your intellect :-)
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 6:29:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In rec.audio.tech Jerry G. <jerryg50@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Here in Canada, a person can be sued for distributing music, without
> permission. It is also illegal to make a backup copy for yourself, without
> having written permission from the authors, or representatives of the
> authors. Apparently, they are very strict over here when it comes to the
> distribution of music, or any written materials.

This is entirely incorrect. From the CPCC website;

"A "private copy" is a copy of a track, or a substantial part of
a track, of recorded music that is made by an individual for his
or her own personal use. [...] In Canada, private copying is
legal and does not infringe copyright."
and also;
"Permission does not have to be sought; private copying is
simply permitted."

Distribution is entirely different from private copying, in the eyes of
the law.
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 3:25:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:00:29 +0000, Laurence Payne
<l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 07:30:11 -0500, "Roger W. Norman"
><rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:
>
>>After reading this I think it's apparent that the RIAA should drop all of
>>it's efforts to sue people for trading music. While I don't believe in
>>copyright infringments, I also think this shows that no matter what "paper
>>trail" RIAA thinks they have to electronically corner perps it's not good
>>enough when an 83 year old dead woman who never owned a computer gets sued.
>>Kinda like the 1% of all death row inmates who are innocent. If you have
>>any level of innocence in even one case, the courts should throw RIAA out on
>>their ass. Talk about frivolous lawsuits.
>
>Sorry? Because ONE case proves unfounded, ALL cases of that type are
>outlawed? Because there's ONE blind, bent or merely mistaken
>traffic cop, there will be NO more tickets?
>
>Your agenda is getting seriously in the way of your intellect :-)

Problem is, this isn't the only case of the RIAA nailing the wrong
person.

On the other topic at hand, what I find particularly frightening is
the piece of legislature before Congress now that's trying to make it
illegal to fast forward through commercials in recorded TV shows. And
I'd really like to know why it's only considered an issue now, when
we've been able to do the exact same thing for at least 20 years, with
videotape.

jtougas

listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door
let's go

e.e. cummings
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 2:14:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Well, not entirely. It is perfectly legal in Canada to borrow a
friend's CD and make a copy for personal use. Check it out-- it's true,
even if most people instinctively think it's not.

It's part of the agreement that imposed a surcharge on all recording
media, to be paid into a general fund that is then allocated out to
different artists.

I have tried unsuccessfully to obtain a report on how much was taken in,
how much was taken out of this fund, how much was disbursed, and to
whom. I wanted to know if most of the money is simply going into the
pockets of lawyers and accountants and bureaucrats, as usual.

Jerry G. wrote:
> Here in Canada, a person can be sued for distributing music, without
> permission. It is also illegal to make a backup copy for yourself, without
> having written permission from the authors, or representatives of the
> authors. Apparently, they are very strict over here when it comes to the
> distribution of music, or any written materials.
>
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 2:26:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

I think most people don't realize is that there is no law that requires
Sony or Warner Brothers, etc., to release their movies on DVD, CD, or
VHS, or over the public airwaves. They don't have to. They are
perfectly within their rights to create a new disk format that can't be
copied or ripped, and try to sell their goods on this new format.

The government should simply do it's job and enforce competition. Let
some media companies protect their goods. Fine. They don't have to
release it in any format but their own. They are perfectly within their
rights to protect their data by releasing it only on proprietary disks.
You will have to buy a special drive to play their music or video. No
problem. Competition. Free enterprise. Let the market decide.

Might sound crazy, but, believe it or not, I really think the consumer
would have been well-served if nobody had ever been able to pirate
copies of Windows or Office. We might actually have competition.

Some companies may decide that consumers would prefer their
entertainment on standardized media which can't be protected. Gosh.
They might actually sell more copies and make more money than the
companies that only provide their goods on proprietary media. Holy cow.
Free enterprise works.

That's why, as always, when governments and corporations talk about the
glories of free enterprise and competition, they mean for you and me,
brother-- not them.

And that's why consumers need to insist that the government stop pimping
for Hollywood and the RIAA. They are trying to seize control of the
hardware to accomplish two things. Stop piracy, but also, to kill off
smaller competitors who don't have the resources to control
distribution. That's the real agenda.

Or am I crazy.

jtougas wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:00:29 +0000, Laurence Payne
> <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 07:30:11 -0500, "Roger W. Norman"
>><rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>After reading this I think it's apparent that the RIAA should drop all of
>>>it's efforts to sue people for trading music. While I don't believe in
>>>copyright infringments, I also think this shows that no matter what "paper
>>>trail" RIAA thinks they have to electronically corner perps it's not good
>>>enough when an 83 year old dead woman who never owned a computer gets sued.
>>>Kinda like the 1% of all death row inmates who are innocent. If you have
>>>any level of innocence in even one case, the courts should throw RIAA out on
>>>their ass. Talk about frivolous lawsuits.
>>
>>Sorry? Because ONE case proves unfounded, ALL cases of that type are
>>outlawed? Because there's ONE blind, bent or merely mistaken
>>traffic cop, there will be NO more tickets?
>>
>>Your agenda is getting seriously in the way of your intellect :-)
>
>
> Problem is, this isn't the only case of the RIAA nailing the wrong
> person.
>
> On the other topic at hand, what I find particularly frightening is
> the piece of legislature before Congress now that's trying to make it
> illegal to fast forward through commercials in recorded TV shows. And
> I'd really like to know why it's only considered an issue now, when
> we've been able to do the exact same thing for at least 20 years, with
> videotape.
>
> jtougas
>
> listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door
> let's go
>
> e.e. cummings
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 6:41:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <M7GdnbI8j-TrdZXfRVn-uw@golden.net> trashtrash@christian-horizons.org writes:

> I think most people don't realize is that there is no law that requires
> Sony or Warner Brothers, etc., to release their movies on DVD, CD, or
> VHS, or over the public airwaves. They don't have to. They are
> perfectly within their rights to create a new disk format that can't be
> copied or ripped, and try to sell their goods on this new format.


Back to vinyl! When people have to copy recordings in real time, fewer
people will copy recordings.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 6:41:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <znr1107884525k@trad>, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

> Back to vinyl! When people have to copy recordings in real time, fewer
> people will copy recordings.

You've got to be kidding. Played once, ripped forever. Besides, the way
the Apple Music Store's going, the Jimmy Reed VeeJay collection will
probably be up there.
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 6:41:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <znr1107884525k@trad>, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:

> In article <M7GdnbI8j-TrdZXfRVn-uw@golden.net>
> trashtrash@christian-horizons.org writes:
>
> > I think most people don't realize is that there is no law that requires
> > Sony or Warner Brothers, etc., to release their movies on DVD, CD, or
> > VHS, or over the public airwaves. They don't have to. They are
> > perfectly within their rights to create a new disk format that can't be
> > copied or ripped, and try to sell their goods on this new format.
>
>
> Back to vinyl! When people have to copy recordings in real time, fewer
> people will copy recordings.
>
>

They'll probably decide that 95% of what they would have copied isn't worth it.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 8:15:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Jay Kadis" <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:jay-F98C7B.13021108022005@news.stanford.edu...
> In article <znr1107884525k@trad>, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:
>
> > In article <M7GdnbI8j-TrdZXfRVn-uw@golden.net>
> > trashtrash@christian-horizons.org writes:
> >
> > > I think most people don't realize is that there is no law that
requires
> > > Sony or Warner Brothers, etc., to release their movies on DVD, CD, or
> > > VHS, or over the public airwaves. They don't have to. They are
> > > perfectly within their rights to create a new disk format that can't
be
> > > copied or ripped, and try to sell their goods on this new format.
> >
> >
> > Back to vinyl! When people have to copy recordings in real time, fewer
> > people will copy recordings.
> >
> >
>
> They'll probably decide that 95% of what they would have copied isn't
worth it.
>
> -Jay
>

A lot of the people that are getting sued were downloading so much music
that they couldn't possibly be listening to it all.

jb
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 9:36:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In rec.audio.tech Bill Van Dyk <trash@christian-horizons.org> wrote:
> I think most people don't realize is that there is no law that requires
> Sony or Warner Brothers, etc., to release their movies on DVD, CD, or
> VHS, or over the public airwaves. They don't have to. They are
> perfectly within their rights to create a new disk format that can't be
> copied or ripped, and try to sell their goods on this new format.

Bill, I don't think anyone would disagree with this point. However, I'm
not at all convinced that creating a proprietary format should give the
creator rights to prevent reverse-engineering. Private copying is protected
in both Canada and (less so) the USA, and that protection shouldn't be
dependent on the format used.

> The government should simply do it's job and enforce competition. Let
> some media companies protect their goods. Fine. They don't have to
> release it in any format but their own. They are perfectly within their
> rights to protect their data by releasing it only on proprietary disks.
> You will have to buy a special drive to play their music or video. No
> problem. Competition. Free enterprise. Let the market decide.

So if I buy a copy of the software, am I allowed to build my own player
for it? I should be.

> Might sound crazy, but, believe it or not, I really think the consumer
> would have been well-served if nobody had ever been able to pirate
> copies of Windows or Office. We might actually have competition.

Hmm. Hard to tell one way or another. I mostly agree, but there are a lot
of other factors that lead to MS having their monopolies.

> And that's why consumers need to insist that the government stop pimping
> for Hollywood and the RIAA. They are trying to seize control of the
> hardware to accomplish two things. Stop piracy, but also, to kill off
> smaller competitors who don't have the resources to control
> distribution. That's the real agenda.

I don't think the RIAA is particularly interested in stopping piracy. Rather,
they're using the threat of piracy to force tighter laws through, and
establish dictatorial control through the courts rather than through
trade and competition.

Ultimately, they want to dictate your listening habits and even your
preferences.

Colin
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 11:33:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <me-0AA516.13094708022005@individual.net> me@privacy.net writes:

> In article <znr1107884525k@trad>, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
> wrote:
>
> > Back to vinyl! When people have to copy recordings in real time, fewer
> > people will copy recordings.
>
> You've got to be kidding. Played once, ripped forever.

Didn't we have this discussion a while back? There is absolutely no
way to prevent "ripping" as long as the technology is available and
there's one person willing to go out of his way to do the rest of the
world a favor. Maybe we need to introduce jealousy. "I have a digital
copy but I'm not going to give it to you - you have to make your own.
Nya, nya, nya!"




--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 10:03:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ee0f01ptt1su2t54v6h43bfmhi96mrapo5@4ax.com...
>...Because ONE case proves unfounded, ALL cases of that type are
> outlawed? Because there's ONE blind, bent or merely mistaken
> traffic cop, there will be NO more tickets?

Especially considering that the RIAA is not currently allowed to find out
who it is until AFTER they file a lawsuit!
Imagine if our clients had the unlimited right to make copies of their audio
files before paying for our work? The ONLY thing we do all day long is to
create intellectual property. It's just that everybody thinks they are some
kind of a special case who deserves to get paid while nobody else does.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 11:46:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

I don't believe so. This is one case, but not the only case. You have to
pay attention Laurence. Granny has been sued more than once for
grandchildren's actions, even when those actions don't include downloading
music. After all, RIAA doesn't go after children. They go after relatives
who have the ability to pay.

Now I don't agree with downloading music in terms of "music sharing" and
I've been pretty outspoken about this. But RIAA's efforts to thwart such
actions have been what should be recognized as Draconian, particularly in
their manipulation of congress to get what they want. Remember the delayed
introduction of DAT? RIAA's fault. How about sneaking a midnight amendment
into some other bill's language that resulted in the major's being able to
hold copyrights for infinity rather than relinquishing them back, AS
CONTRACTED, to the originators of the music? Luckily some of the major
artists got some serious backing and that was thrown out, but the point is
if you don't look out for your own interest, nobody else will. That's a
given.

Again, RIAA's methods and practices are for the purpose of intimidation,
hoping to garner settlements rather than court cases, and they are as
bastardly in doing so as Enron was in screwing Granny out of money to keep
her electricity on.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ee0f01ptt1su2t54v6h43bfmhi96mrapo5@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 07:30:11 -0500, "Roger W. Norman"
> <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> >After reading this I think it's apparent that the RIAA should drop all of
> >it's efforts to sue people for trading music. While I don't believe in
> >copyright infringments, I also think this shows that no matter what
"paper
> >trail" RIAA thinks they have to electronically corner perps it's not good
> >enough when an 83 year old dead woman who never owned a computer gets
sued.
> >Kinda like the 1% of all death row inmates who are innocent. If you have
> >any level of innocence in even one case, the courts should throw RIAA out
on
> >their ass. Talk about frivolous lawsuits.
>
> Sorry? Because ONE case proves unfounded, ALL cases of that type are
> outlawed? Because there's ONE blind, bent or merely mistaken
> traffic cop, there will be NO more tickets?
>
> Your agenda is getting seriously in the way of your intellect :-)
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 11:55:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Yeah. What do you want to listen to on Thursday, the 17th of February 2005?
How about Christmas Eve, 2006? I can program it in right now and we'll
never have to make another selection as long as we live.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"reddred" <opaloka@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:_6ednekmS-zkpZTfRVn-2A@adelphia.com...
>
> "Jay Kadis" <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote in message
> news:jay-F98C7B.13021108022005@news.stanford.edu...
> > In article <znr1107884525k@trad>, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:
> >
> > > In article <M7GdnbI8j-TrdZXfRVn-uw@golden.net>
> > > trashtrash@christian-horizons.org writes:
> > >
> > > > I think most people don't realize is that there is no law that
> requires
> > > > Sony or Warner Brothers, etc., to release their movies on DVD, CD,
or
> > > > VHS, or over the public airwaves. They don't have to. They are
> > > > perfectly within their rights to create a new disk format that can't
> be
> > > > copied or ripped, and try to sell their goods on this new format.
> > >
> > >
> > > Back to vinyl! When people have to copy recordings in real time, fewer
> > > people will copy recordings.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > They'll probably decide that 95% of what they would have copied isn't
> worth it.
> >
> > -Jay
> >
>
> A lot of the people that are getting sued were downloading so much music
> that they couldn't possibly be listening to it all.
>
> jb
>
>
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 2:58:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Bob, your statement makes no sense in light of the fact that this particular
Granny didn't own a computer, didn't know squat about computers, and didn't
want to know anything about computers.

I agree with the proposition that we all work with intellectual property and
should be able to protect it, but when it comes down to such chicanary as to
sue a woman who didn't even have a computer, the premise of "enforcement"
goes a little too far.

My statement was basically about the fact of "having" the right to try to
backtrack music sharing and sue whomever they find at the end of their
rainbow. This isn't a one time thing, although maybe suing a dead woman may
be, but the fact is that one isn't guilty until proven innocent, and this
strategy that the RIAA has come up with promotes the idea that anyone is
guilty until proven innocent.

If it's hard for the RIAA to prove music sharing, then tough titty. I don't
care. I don't expect to have any less an arena of proof than is required
for criminal activity, but because the RIAA has their dollars in so many
congressmen's pockets, they obviously have carte blanche on suits.

And I don't care if they don't find out until AFTER they file the suit. If
they can be so blantantly wrong, then there's something wrong with the
solution. And this is what I'm talking about. You know I don't agree with
music sharing. I've been more than outspoken about it over the years. I
believe it's stealing, but I've never been a proponent of supporting the
RIAA's involvement with trying to police the situation and forcing ISPs to
supply information that obviously has no bearing on the situation. If this
particular "Granny" gave her grandchild a birthday gift of an AOL account,
for instance, she's NOT guilty of any wrongdoing one way or the other.
Whether she's alive or dead. My guess is that were she alive, the suit
would have gone ahead and the RIAA would be crowing about another "case"
solved.

If I give my son a car for his 21st birthday, am I responsible for any
moving violations, or any nefarious acts that the car might have been
associated with? I don't think so. Assuming that I actually GAVE him the
car, meaning it's in his name. If ISPs can't establish names of the
recipient of a gift as the true identity and owner of the account, that's
not Granny's problem. And if the RIAA tries to jump down my throat about my
younger son's involvement with music sharing then believe me, I'll be
jumping down their throats with about 100 posts to this newsgroup about how
I feel about music sharing and what protestations I've made over the years
about his participation, and my ultimate decree that he will NOT download
"shared music" over my network or I would cut his access off.

The point being that one has the ability to cut it off if one knows about
it, but I'm not responsible for anything my son downloaded before I became
aware, and I became aware when my network hubs were lighting up like a
Christmas tree when my son was asleep.

The only thing good about this situation is that RIAA dropped the suit after
they found out the woman was dead. But believe me, two things are going to
happen. One, they will go after whatever grandchild they determine is
"guilty" and Two, they will continue to take potshots at "enforcement" which
opens them up to ridicule for their efforts.

I won't support just "anything" that might deter illegal copying. I will
and do support efforts that bring the download costs down to the point where
sharing doesn't any longer make any sense. Perhaps the RIAA should be
supporting their clients with information that gives them an idea of how to
combat the problems from the git-go, rather than trying to hold people
worldwide accountable for the major's ineptitude. Then we'd be getting
somewhere. But since the RIAA sponsered the addendum to an agriculture bill
to take away the copyrights of the songwriters ad infinity, I don't trust
these guys as far as the strongest man can throw them, and they need to be
brought down a few pegs.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Bob Olhsson" <olh@hyperback.com> wrote in message
news:Y7tOd.180697$w62.42284@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ee0f01ptt1su2t54v6h43bfmhi96mrapo5@4ax.com...
> >...Because ONE case proves unfounded, ALL cases of that type are
> > outlawed? Because there's ONE blind, bent or merely mistaken
> > traffic cop, there will be NO more tickets?
>
> Especially considering that the RIAA is not currently allowed to find out
> who it is until AFTER they file a lawsuit!
> Imagine if our clients had the unlimited right to make copies of their
audio
> files before paying for our work? The ONLY thing we do all day long is to
> create intellectual property. It's just that everybody thinks they are
some
> kind of a special case who deserves to get paid while nobody else does.
>
> --
> Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
> Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
> Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
> 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com
>
>
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 9:30:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:46:18 -0500, "Roger W. Norman"
<rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:

> After all, RIAA doesn't go after children. They go after relatives
>who have the ability to pay.

With the exception of that twelve year old girl, of course they do...

jtougas

listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door
let's go

e.e. cummings
February 10, 2005 11:18:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"jtougas" <jatougasNOSPAM@charter.net> wrote in message
news:sjrn01l24dpkgvbe1gqtgf75s07mm4l8d8@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:46:18 -0500, "Roger W. Norman"
> <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> > After all, RIAA doesn't go after children. They go after relatives
> >who have the ability to pay.
>
> With the exception of that twelve year old girl, of course they do...
>
> jtougas
>
> listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door
> let's go
>
> e.e. cummings

I really fail to see there reasoning in suing people, even if they have
money to pay. Think about it, its not like people magically make the money
appear when they owe someone.

Jim
February 11, 2005 1:29:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Jim" <no@spam.com> wrote in message news:372fapF57f8aiU1@individual.net...

> I really fail to see there reasoning in suing people, even if they have
> money to pay. Think about it, its not like people magically make the
money
> appear when they owe someone.
>
> Jim
>
>

That made no sense, sorry.

What i mean is, even if they arent the poorest people. Unless your suing
Mr. Gates, chances are a law suit calling for a million dolars isnt going
to get paid in this life time.

Jim
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 12:42:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bill Van Dyk wrote:

> In fact, I would propose that Ashlee Simpson is precisely what you get
> with the current state of the recording industry. She is a product that
> is manufactured by her record company, packaged, homogenized, promoted
> and marketted, placed, disgraced, and interlaced.

All you have to do to find great music is look beyond and around the
majors. That's it. Your concept of the current state of the recording
industry leaves out a planet full of cottage music industries. Find
something you like, and then buy it. There is lots of good stuff around,
more than ever. Yeah, you gotta work for it. But in general if somebody
is going to spend several fortunes bringing music to your attention, by
the time the music gets to your attention it isn't going to be worth
your attention.

> Most artists don't earn a decent living with the RIAA and their phalanx
> of lawyers and hounds anyway.

Most artists, throughout history and regardless of chosen medium, have
not been able to earn a decent living.

> iTunes proves that it is very possible to make decent money selling
> popular music nowadays.

Not really, at least not yet. The iTunes store has generated a load of
traffic but returned very little to Apple, financially. The iTunes store
has helped sell trainloads of iPods which _have_ returned decently and
directly to Apple. And iPods preceded the iTunes store.

> My sympathy for the RIAA was already limited by
> the colossal stupidity of their initial rejection of any form of
> availability over the internet. They were clearly trying to protect
> their most over-priced and profitable markets: the full-length CD.

I like CD's. I like some physical content to go along with the music. I
haven't bought a single tune off the 'net. I probably won't for a good
long while, if ever. I hit AllDirect or similar and order what I like.

You decry the potential profit margin of CD's, yet you want somebody to
pay for hitting you up 'side the head with marketing to point you at the
music. How will that marketing be financed?

> Instead of competing with the internet with value and convenience, and
> offering back-catalogues, and individual songs, and extra features...
> they called upon their senators and congressmen and lawyers.

You overlook the label's contractural agreements with their artists. The
structure of the "old world" contracts did not allow the labels to just
pop up websites and go for it. Is it surprising that it took a company
with a history of digital innovation to come up with a digital rights
management concept that the labels and artists found tenable?

> There was a time, I suppose, when horse-breeders fought the stanley
> steamer. That's really what we're talking about here-- not the
> content(there will always be content) but who controls the deliver
> vehicle. The RIAA was right to see the internet as a threat to their
> dominion over the distribution of music. But they're way off in terms
> of what represents progress.

We are about three decades, at most, away from the obsolesence of
automobiles. I hope your offspring will understand how to relate to a
horse, and I hope my offspring understand the value of such a mode of
transportation. I also hope someone maintains a viable stock of horses
from which to develop the transportation of th "future".

--
ha
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 4:36:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 00:25:30 -0500, jtougas
<jatougasNOSPAM@charter.net> wrote:

>Problem is, this isn't the only case of the RIAA nailing the wrong
>person.

Reprehensible. But my point stands. In the UK, I believe 50% of
criminal cases result in acquittal. We don't use this as an argument
to never accuse anyone of anything :-)

>
>On the other topic at hand, what I find particularly frightening is
>the piece of legislature before Congress now that's trying to make it
>illegal to fast forward through commercials in recorded TV shows. And
>I'd really like to know why it's only considered an issue now, when
>we've been able to do the exact same thing for at least 20 years, with
>videotape.

Yeah. Didn't they try to make Pi equal to 3 once? Or is that a
myth? Only goes to show that democracy, though maybe a least-bad
system, has its faults. Particularly with an un-informed electorate
:-)
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 4:47:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 11:26:19 -0500, Bill Van Dyk
<trash@christian-horizons.org> wrote:

>I think most people don't realize is that there is no law that requires
>Sony or Warner Brothers, etc., to release their movies on DVD, CD, or
>VHS, or over the public airwaves. They don't have to. They are
>perfectly within their rights to create a new disk format that can't be
>copied or ripped, and try to sell their goods on this new format.
>

Why should anyone assume there was a law forcing distribution in any
particular format, or forcing distribution at all? There's
obviously a practical "law" making a common playable format highly
desirable.


>The government should simply do it's job and enforce competition. Let
>some media companies protect their goods. Fine. They don't have to
>release it in any format but their own. They are perfectly within their
>rights to protect their data by releasing it only on proprietary disks.
> You will have to buy a special drive to play their music or video. No
>problem. Competition. Free enterprise. Let the market decide.


Are "Competition" and "Free Enterprise" articles of religious faith
for you? Here in the UK they have recently led to a ridiculous
fragmentation of the rail system which, following several serious
incidents, is at last being partially corrected. They have led to
each neighbourhood having FOUR (or more) cell-phone masts (until the
government wisely restricted Free Enterprise by forcing providers to
share masts). I'm sure you can list similar idiocies in the name of
"Free Enterprise" in your part of the world.
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 4:57:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:46:18 -0500, "Roger W. Norman"
<rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:

>I don't believe so. This is one case, but not the only case. You have to
>pay attention Laurence. Granny has been sued more than once for
>grandchildren's actions, even when those actions don't include downloading
>music. After all, RIAA doesn't go after children. They go after relatives
>who have the ability to pay.

Isn't it a little more complicated than that? They detect massive
file-sharing. Who does that identity lead to? They find out as
the case proceeds. Never underestimate the ingenuity of someone
caught red-handed in avoiding blame. A LOT of these will turn out to
point to a sweet little grandchild :-)

So that's taken as a full defence, and you drop the case?

Remember the courts listening with a straight face to denials of what
Napster was actually used for? You can argue whether bad usage of a
system should condemn the system, Possibly it shouldn't. But
bare-faced lies were told about what the usage WAS.

The file-sharers are playing dirty too. :-)
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 5:04:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:58:03 -0500, "Roger W. Norman"
<rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:

>The only thing good about this situation is that RIAA dropped the suit after
>they found out the woman was dead. But believe me, two things are going to
>happen. One, they will go after whatever grandchild they determine is
>"guilty" and Two, they will continue to take potshots at "enforcement" which
>opens them up to ridicule for their efforts.

So you register a car. You die. Your car is inherited by a
grand-child. He commits an offense.

The ticket will initially come to Grandma. But the true culprit will
emerge. Is this wrong?


Why all these quote-marks round "Guilty" and "Enforce"? They're real
words, being used correctly.
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 5:07:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:18:00 -0500, "Jim" <no@spam.com> wrote:

>I really fail to see there reasoning in suing people, even if they have
>money to pay. Think about it, its not like people magically make the money
>appear when they owe someone.

Eh? Most people make money appear when they owe it. It's how the
world operates.

It's surprising, however, how many people's resources evaporate when
faced with a legal charge :-)

Forget the little girl. She's a red herring. Anyway, are kids
immune from the law?
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 10:23:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

I don't have a problem with going after obvious file sharing individuals,
assuming that one's ISP isn't required to provide information about the
activities of their clients. After all, they have all the rules and if you
break those rules you can be kicked off. But to think that private
information, as they illude to in their advertisements, isn't private, and
that even RIAA can get to it, means that big bad ugly mean federal
government doesn't even have to have a warrant of any weight.

These are sticky situations that belie what we'd like to believe. A person
can not be an IP address. It's as simple as that. Once a person can be an
IP address, all the flood gates are open and the USER has no rights at all.

This is why I spent 2 years developing digital signature. Regardless of
your computer of current choice, your digital signature authenticates whom
you are and verifies your access to sites. But to do that means something
along the lines of a national ID. Nay, it IS a national ID.

I don't think I want to get involved with this particular line of reasoning
again as it can be Googled with more than enough posts from me on the topic.

Needless to say, again, if a person that doesn't have a computer and is DEAD
can be sued, then obviously, regardless of the dropping of the suit, the
investigative end of the program is simply flawed.

I CAN, however, teach any company that wants to know, how to digitally sign
any packets that comprise a music download and would be part of the
resulting file without stopping playback at the original consumer's end
(i.e. iPod downloads,etc.) But if they allow it to be downloaded, then they
will be caught. It's actually pretty basic with a 1024 bit signature. The
conical absolute tree would come from the company, and any subsequent
downloads would automatically check with the tree structure to see if
outstanding licenses were available. If not, no go. If no connection to
the tree database, no play (meaning if the computer or iPod isn't online, it
can't play back the file). Easy and part of the raw data's header structure
so that with the proper authorization it wouldn't stop playback of the raw
data. And each download would have a different public/private key, so no
matter what, it couldn't be shared in digital form. It could be shared in
analog, as could any digital file.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6nmu011nsgbcb14vfmhnac68qhndjspgpd@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:46:18 -0500, "Roger W. Norman"
> <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> >I don't believe so. This is one case, but not the only case. You have
to
> >pay attention Laurence. Granny has been sued more than once for
> >grandchildren's actions, even when those actions don't include
downloading
> >music. After all, RIAA doesn't go after children. They go after
relatives
> >who have the ability to pay.
>
> Isn't it a little more complicated than that? They detect massive
> file-sharing. Who does that identity lead to? They find out as
> the case proceeds. Never underestimate the ingenuity of someone
> caught red-handed in avoiding blame. A LOT of these will turn out to
> point to a sweet little grandchild :-)
>
> So that's taken as a full defence, and you drop the case?
>
> Remember the courts listening with a straight face to denials of what
> Napster was actually used for? You can argue whether bad usage of a
> system should condemn the system, Possibly it shouldn't. But
> bare-faced lies were told about what the usage WAS.
>
> The file-sharers are playing dirty too. :-)
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 12:51:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Bad analogy. Since I've just lost a member of my family, the car can't be
in his name anymore, so your supposition is based on a false premise. I can
drive the car, but if I get pulled over using his tags, it's MY problem
because his tags are no longer in effect, just as his insurance doesn't
cover anyone anymore because he's DEAD.

But that's just assuming that one does the RIGHT thing and notifies everyone
that the person is dead. That's why funeral homes offer one the opportunity
to buy as many death certificates as one needs to notify all the people
necessary.

As far as the quotes are concerned, this is a non-RTF text so the only
emphasis one has available is either full caps or quotes. Full caps mean
one thing, quotes somewhat less of an emphasis. I thought it was plain to
see. Perhaps I'm wrong.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:38nu01lg9cpkuoon2ntjkuk5ii49fpmnpf@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:58:03 -0500, "Roger W. Norman"
> <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> >The only thing good about this situation is that RIAA dropped the suit
after
> >they found out the woman was dead. But believe me, two things are going
to
> >happen. One, they will go after whatever grandchild they determine is
> >"guilty" and Two, they will continue to take potshots at "enforcement"
which
> >opens them up to ridicule for their efforts.
>
> So you register a car. You die. Your car is inherited by a
> grand-child. He commits an offense.
>
> The ticket will initially come to Grandma. But the true culprit will
> emerge. Is this wrong?
>
>
> Why all these quote-marks round "Guilty" and "Enforce"? They're real
> words, being used correctly.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 12:51:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Roger W. Norman wrote:



> As far as the quotes are concerned, this is a non-RTF text so the only
> emphasis one has available is either full caps or quotes. Full caps mean
> one thing, quotes somewhat less of an emphasis. I thought it was plain to
> see. Perhaps I'm wrong.


FYI, quotes look the same as quotes in any other context, but the
usernet conventions seem to include *bold*, _underline_, and /italics/
as well as SHOUTING.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 3:49:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In <C6-dnRevIeFL3YzfRVn-jQ@rcn.net>, on 02/14/05
at 07:23 PM, "Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> said:


[ ... ]

>And each download would have a different public/private key, so no
>matter what, it couldn't be shared in digital form.

[ ... ]

Is this a pay per view or play model? If not, what happens if I
purchase a replacement hard drive, player, or computer? Do I have to
re-license each cut with its owner?

I hope the music industry thugs realize that at some point a threshold
will be reached, beyond which it becomes too much trouble to wrestle
with them. They'll find that I can live without their products and
services.

The sad part is that if a significant number of customers reach this
point, the thugs will probably cry PIRACY INJURY and goad their friends
in Congress to legislate a universal copyright tax on everyone to prop
up their profits.

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam: uce@ftc.gov
wordgame:123(abc):<14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13> (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 7:06:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cjnu019oj0e7fvifq3av5s1bldqg9kno9i@4ax.com...
> Forget the little girl. She's a red herring. Anyway, are kids
> immune from the law?

Actually yes, in most cases. Depending on age and the crime. Try prosecuting
a 5 YO for shop lifting for example and you'll find their parents aren't
responsible either.

MrT.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 7:12:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:C6-dnRevIeFL3YzfRVn-jQ@rcn.net...
>If no connection to
> the tree database, no play (meaning if the computer or iPod isn't online,
it
> can't play back the file).

Why on earth would anyone want such a system. (apart from the record
companies who care not at all whether you can actually play their music,
only that you PAY for it)

iPod's etc. are MOSTLY used off line.

MrT.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 10:49:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:51:18 -0500, "Roger W. Norman"
<rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:

>As far as the quotes are concerned, this is a non-RTF text so the only
>emphasis one has available is either full caps or quotes. Full caps mean
>one thing, quotes somewhat less of an emphasis. I thought it was plain to
>see. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Ah. You use quotes as emphasis. I thought they indicated
"so-called", often with a slightly derisive inflection.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 10:52:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:51:18 -0500, "Roger W. Norman"
<rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:

>Bad analogy. Since I've just lost a member of my family, the car can't be
>in his name anymore, so your supposition is based on a false premise. I can
>drive the car, but if I get pulled over using his tags, it's MY problem
>because his tags are no longer in effect, just as his insurance doesn't
>cover anyone anymore because he's DEAD.

Ah. Cultural differences. Here in the UK a vehicle is registered to
an individual. If you're caught by e.g. a speed camera, the ticket
comes to the registered owner. Whatever these "tags" are, we don't
have them.

PS - how would you categorise my use of quotes round "tags"? It's
not emphasis.....
!