Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Supreme Court vs. P2P Networks

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 12:25:58 PM

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

I can't believe it. More than 12 hours after the Supreme Court
decision on file sharing over the Internet. They didn't offer "the
final word" on file sharing but said that the owner or operator of a
file sharing service or software (such as Grokster) can be held
responsible for the action of its users. It of course doesn't mean
that they're regulating the technology, but if a product's primary use
(or advertised use) is for doing something illegal, the company (as
well as the user doing the illegal thing) can be held liable for its
illegal use.

Of course this means they first have to catch the user doing something
illegal, but that means that the lawyers get two lawsuits for the
price of one.

This reminds me a bit of Virginia's law that makes radar detectors
illegal since there is no practical use for a radar detector other
than to aid the user in breaking a law. Is there any reason for the
common person to have a radar detector other than to aid him in
avoiding speeding in a place where he might get caught for doing so?
Hence the law.

Of course music file sharing has the special case of distributing
music you have crated and for which you own the copyright. But there
are web sites for that which offer better control of the distribution.
The law (and the concern) is of course intended to discourage the
actions of those who distribute material for which they don't own the
copyright.

--
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
June 28, 2005 1:16:31 PM

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

On 6/28/2005 7:25 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> I can't believe it. More than 12 hours after the Supreme Court
> decision on file sharing over the Internet. They didn't offer "the
> final word" on file sharing but said that the owner or operator of a
> file sharing service or software (such as Grokster) can be held
> responsible for the action of its users. It of course doesn't mean
> that they're regulating the technology, but if a product's primary use
> (or advertised use) is for doing something illegal, the company (as
> well as the user doing the illegal thing) can be held liable for its
> illegal use.
>
> Of course this means they first have to catch the user doing something
> illegal, but that means that the lawyers get two lawsuits for the
> price of one.
>
> This reminds me a bit of Virginia's law that makes radar detectors
> illegal since there is no practical use for a radar detector other
> than to aid the user in breaking a law. Is there any reason for the
> common person to have a radar detector other than to aid him in
> avoiding speeding in a place where he might get caught for doing so?
> Hence the law.
>
> Of course music file sharing has the special case of distributing
> music you have crated and for which you own the copyright. But there
> are web sites for that which offer better control of the distribution.
> The law (and the concern) is of course intended to discourage the
> actions of those who distribute material for which they don't own the
> copyright.
>
> --
> 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

P2P companies will just incorporate outside the USA. Also, once a
robust GPL P2P program is created and released with source hosted
outside the USA who do you sue? Oh wait, Azureus? Now sue Sun?
June 28, 2005 1:51:56 PM

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

Mike Rivers wrote:
> This reminds me a bit of Virginia's law that makes radar detectors
> illegal since there is no practical use for a radar detector other
> than to aid the user in breaking a law. Is there any reason for the
> common person to have a radar detector other than to aid him in
> avoiding speeding in a place where he might get caught for doing so?
> Hence the law.

More like the Betamax case, I'd say. What possible reason could
someone have for a video recorder other than recording tv shows or
videocassettes that are protected by copyright? I can think of a few,
actually. About as many as I can think of for P2P.
Related resources
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 4:34:36 PM

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

>if a product's primary use
> (or advertised use) is for doing something illegal, the company (as
> well as the user doing the illegal thing) can be held liable for its
> illegal use.

Which seems okay in theory. The twist is that a company which doesn't tailor
a filesharing service to be used for illegal purposes can still have its
service used primarily for those reasons - it's determined by the user. It
seems wrong to me to penalize a company for its user's misuse (and by
penalize I mean both through the courts and by imposing requirements to take
measures to reduce their services capability to be used for illegal
purposes)..

> This reminds me a bit of Virginia's law that makes radar detectors
> illegal since there is no practical use for a radar detector other
> than to aid the user in breaking a law. Is there any reason for the
> common person to have a radar detector other than to aid him in
> avoiding speeding in a place where he might get caught for doing so?
> Hence the law.

Makes sense... Except that filesharing, as you said, has non-illegal uses.
Guns are manufactured for non-illegal purposes but are largely used for
illegal purposes. Filesharing (one could argue) exists for non-illegal
purposes but is largely used for illegal purposes. What's the difference -
in the relative percentage of illegal to non-illegal use? Where do we draw
the line? At 78%? 83%?
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 8:32:02 PM

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

In article <2Zcwe.23$xG2.452@news.uswest.net> dan@nospam.com writes:

> P2P companies will just incorporate outside the USA. Also, once a
> robust GPL P2P program is created and released with source hosted
> outside the USA who do you sue? Oh wait, Azureus? Now sue Sun?

That's what lawyers do (figure out who to sue) and I'm not a lawyer.
But you can bet they'll find somebody to sue. Even if the complaintant
loses, the lawyers win.



--
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
June 28, 2005 10:17:28 PM

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

On 28 Jun 2005 09:51:56 -0700, "JRoberts" <jroberts258@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Mike Rivers wrote:
>> This reminds me a bit of Virginia's law that makes radar detectors
>> illegal since there is no practical use for a radar detector other
>> than to aid the user in breaking a law. Is there any reason for the
>> common person to have a radar detector other than to aid him in
>> avoiding speeding in a place where he might get caught for doing so?
>> Hence the law.
>
>More like the Betamax case, I'd say. What possible reason could
>someone have for a video recorder other than recording tv shows or
>videocassettes that are protected by copyright?

In a Supresme Court ruling long, long ago, "time shifting", one of
the most popular uses of VCR's at the time, was declared "fair use" of
copyrighted material broadcast over Television, ISTR that case
involved Betamax specifically, but it made it have a legal use. I
don't see a similar argument for P2P.

>I can think of a few,
>actually. About as many as I can think of for P2P.

-----
http://www.mindspring.com/~benbradley
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 10:30:24 PM

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

On 28 Jun 2005 08:25:58 -0400, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>I can't believe it. More than 12 hours after the Supreme Court
>decision on file sharing over the Internet. They didn't offer "the
>final word" on file sharing but said that the owner or operator of a
>file sharing service or software (such as Grokster) can be held
>responsible for the action of its users. It of course doesn't mean
>that they're regulating the technology, but if a product's primary use
>(or advertised use) is for doing something illegal, the company (as
>well as the user doing the illegal thing) can be held liable for its
>illegal use.

>Of course this means they first have to catch the user doing something
>illegal, but that means that the lawyers get two lawsuits for the
>price of one.
>
>This reminds me a bit of Virginia's law that makes radar detectors
>illegal since there is no practical use for a radar detector other
>than to aid the user in breaking a law. Is there any reason for the
>common person to have a radar detector other than to aid him in
>avoiding speeding in a place where he might get caught for doing so?
>Hence the law.
>
>Of course music file sharing has the special case of distributing
>music you have crated and for which you own the copyright. But there
>are web sites for that which offer better control of the distribution.

Not only that, websites are eaier to set up and find. Search an
independent artist and/or song with Google and you'll get to
Soundlclick.com and/or the artist's own webpage, but you won't get a
link to a P2P network even if the song or artist is there.
Some independents may put their own music on P2P for promotion
purposes thus legally using it, but that's a very small minority of
what's out there. They're riding a huge wave of copyright
infringement.
P2P software exists SOLELY to hide the fact that its users are
distributing copyrighted material without the owners' permission.

>The law (and the concern) is of course intended to discourage the
>actions of those who distribute material for which they don't own the
>copyright.

-----
http://www.mindspring.com/~benbradley
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 10:30:25 PM

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

> Not only that, websites are eaier to set up and find.

I disagree, setting up a website and submitting it to search engines, etc,
is far more complicated than throwing an mp3 in your share folder. Even if
you use the free music sharing websites I think P2P comes out on top in
terms of ease-of-use.

Search an
> independent artist and/or song with Google and you'll get to
> Soundlclick.com and/or the artist's own webpage, but you won't get a
> link to a P2P network even if the song or artist is there.

I think it's a moot point that you won't find a p2p network link searching
on google. You won't find a html link if you search on limewire either...
where you look determines the nature of what you find as with all things in
life. Google's not the be all and end all of searching tools (though it's
pretty darn good).

If you compare time to find + download a song I'm pretty sure P2P networks
come up ahead of html most often (maybe not so much with lesser known
material which possibly represents more of the legal downloads).

> Some independents may put their own music on P2P for promotion
> purposes thus legally using it, but that's a very small minority of
> what's out there. They're riding a huge wave of copyright
> infringement.

It might be a minority but answer this: what percentage of downloads must be
legal before we consider should consider a P2P network to be a legal
operation/service. Or the opposite, at what ratio of illegal to legal
downloads should a P2P be considered illegal?

> P2P software exists SOLELY to hide the fact that its users are
> distributing copyrighted material without the owners' permission.

If you're saying the motive behind the creation of most P2P networks is
illegal file transfers, I'd say you're probably right. But that's not
something that can ever be proven in a court of law, unless of course the
only possible use for P2P is illegal file sharing, which obviously isn't
true.

Dave
June 28, 2005 10:30:25 PM

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

> P2P software exists SOLELY to hide the fact that its users are
> distributing copyrighted material without the owners' permission.
>

Then you do not understand how the BitTorrent protocol works. Even MS
is coming out with a P2P client to distribute software like updates more
efficiently.
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 10:30:25 PM

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

Ben Bradley wrote:

> P2P software exists SOLELY to hide the fact that its users are
> distributing copyrighted material without the owners' permission.

For the most part, correct.
If it weren't illegal there would be no reason
not to post and make available (whatever) on a
server, rather than directly from a 'peer'.

rd
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 11:00:03 PM

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

In article <1119977516.218261.222690@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> jroberts258@hotmail.com writes:

> More like the Betamax case, I'd say. What possible reason could
> someone have for a video recorder other than recording tv shows or
> videocassettes that are protected by copyright? I can think of a few,
> actually. About as many as I can think of for P2P.

The Betamax case was decided in favor of recording because the
intended purpose was for recording off-the-air for the purpose of
watching a program at a different time than when it was broadcast. The
intention of the VCR was never to share programs without paying
royalties, and in fact, this wasn't really rampant other than by
outright bootleggers who made fully commercial-appearing copies for
sale.



--
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
June 28, 2005 11:00:05 PM

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

In article <v253c1h3udd70se0id0ljem01eon6ud84c@4ax.com> ben_nospam_bradley@frontiernet.net writes:

> Not only that, websites are eaier to set up and find. Search an
> independent artist and/or song with Google and you'll get to
> Soundlclick.com and/or the artist's own webpage, but you won't get a
> link to a P2P network even if the song or artist is there.

Yup, and that's a reasonable way for an artist to distribute his own
music, either for free or for sale.

It's my impression of how the P2P software applications work is that
they provide the means of searching computeres that happen to be
connected to the network. Or maybe the "mothership" searches a net-
connected computer that has the enabling software running, and builds
a data base that can be searched by users of the software. That way,
you'd know that Joe Shmoe's computer has the song you're looking for
and as soon as he connects to the network, you can grab it.

> P2P software exists SOLELY to hide the fact that its users are
> distributing copyrighted material without the owners' permission.

Sounds to me like the radar detector example, but I'm sure you'll get
some arguments about (and from) all the "legitimate" users.

--
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
June 28, 2005 11:05:32 PM

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

Ben Bradley wrote:
>
> P2P software exists SOLELY to hide the fact that its users are
> distributing copyrighted material without the owners' permission.

Hardly.

I use BitTorrent several time a month for the sole purpose of acquiring
software updates -- and have never used it to transfer copyrighted
material (with or without permission.) IMHO it is an elegant solution
to a realworld problem -- and a perfect example of how banning a
technology is a totally inappropriate response to some real or imagined
misuse of that technology.
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 11:13:19 PM

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

RD Jones wrote:
> Ben Bradley wrote:
>
>> P2P software exists SOLELY to hide the fact that its users are
>> distributing copyrighted material without the owners' permission.
>
>
> For the most part, correct.
> If it weren't illegal there would be no reason
> not to post and make available (whatever) on a
> server, rather than directly from a 'peer'.

What if your server has only a T-1 uplink and your software becomes
insanely popular?

BitTorrent addresses a genuine need in the software distribution
industry and does so at a minimal expense to the publisher/author. It
leverages the (paid for) bandwidth of many users in order to facilitate
quick downloads to other users. Yes, it's disruptive to the centralized
gatekeepers, but it benefits the small startups. Some of us believe
this might actually encourage innovation. ;>
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 4:33:13 AM

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

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:03:54 -0400, "David Grant"
<NO_SPAM_PLEASE_jmd_2003@msn.com> wrote:

>If you're saying the motive behind the creation of most P2P networks is
>illegal file transfers, I'd say you're probably right. But that's not
>something that can ever be proven in a court of law,

Not according to the Supreme Court, 28 July 2005.

> unless of course the only possible use for P2P is illegal file sharing,
> which obviously isn't true.

Their ruling was that it *was* obvious.

I (otherwise) often disagree with these birds, but a unanimous
decision is a done deal.

Chris Hornbeck
"Untestable does not mean meaningless."
-Joe Sensor
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 4:40:28 AM

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

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:33:13 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
<chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:03:54 -0400, "David Grant"
><NO_SPAM_PLEASE_jmd_2003@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>If you're saying the motive behind the creation of most P2P networks is
>>illegal file transfers, I'd say you're probably right. But that's not
>>something that can ever be proven in a court of law,
>
> Not according to the Supreme Court, 28 July 2005.
>

Despite the opinion of some in the RIAA, US law only extends as far as
our borders.

There's a website run by a swede who likes to abuse attorneys who
threaten him with "Persuit to US code . . . . "

But of course there's no places to download music outside the US
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 5:57:32 AM

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

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:40:28 GMT, Charles Krug
<cdkrug@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>> Not according to the Supreme Court, 28 July 2005.
>>
>
>Despite the opinion of some in the RIAA, US law only extends as far as
>our borders.

I have no stake in this issue, but I'm still damned sure that
money decides all legal decisions, and will ultimately apply
everywhere. Money talks; bullshit walks; like that.

The argument that technology can be "slippery" enough to
evade Money is compelling, but unconvincing to me.

JMOHO.

Chris Hornbeck
"Untestable does not mean meaningless."
-Joe Sensor
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 7:15:03 AM

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

"Kurt Albershardt" wrote ...
> What if your server has only a T-1 uplink and your software
> becomes insanely popular?

BitTorrent is not a unique solution to this problem, only the
latest one.
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 8:27:10 AM

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

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:05:32 -0700, Kurt Albershardt <kurt@nv.net>
wrote:

>Ben Bradley wrote:
>>
>> P2P software exists SOLELY to hide the fact that its users are
>> distributing copyrighted material without the owners' permission.
>
>Hardly.
>
>I use BitTorrent several time a month for the sole purpose of acquiring
>software updates -- and have never used it to transfer copyrighted
>material (with or without permission.) IMHO it is an elegant solution
>to a realworld problem -- and a perfect example of how banning a
>technology is a totally inappropriate response to some real or imagined
>misuse of that technology.

To answer both you and Dan, I wasn't thinking of BitTorrent. I see
where it qualifies as "P2P" but is obviously different from the "Usual
Suspects" (the original Napster and its successors) both technically
and as you demonstrate yourself, in how people use it.

-----
http://www.mindspring.com/~benbradley
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 1:25:45 PM

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

In article <3iedvdFl7qvfU1@individual.net> kurt@nv.net writes:

> I use BitTorrent several time a month for the sole purpose of acquiring
> software updates -- and have never used it to transfer copyrighted
> material (with or without permission.)

Aren't software updates copyright?

What software companies are using BitTorrent to distribute their
updates? I can see it in the context of software for network support
where permission to be part of the server network is limited to
legitimate customers, but those are generally pretty honorable
customers. It's going to take a means of passing some cash before you
can get the latest Sony movie release, X-Box game, or upgrade to
the next version of Windows.

> IMHO it is an elegant solution
> to a realworld problem -- and a perfect example of how banning a
> technology is a totally inappropriate response to some real or imagined
> misuse of that technology.

I don't advocate banning technology, but I do advocate letting it out
before there's a means of shutting the barn door before the horse
escapes. Say you're part of a BitTorrent network that distributes new
software for a router. What, other than your honesty, is stopping you
from putting a commercial CD up for sharing among your fellow router
users over your otherwise legitimate network? Is there some sort of
security that can be imposed that either makes your shared directory
invisible to someone who isn't in the club or blocks transfer from that
directory for those without permission?


--
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
June 29, 2005 2:39:57 PM

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

> It's my belief that we are witnessing the end of the Industry as we
> know it. I will be delighted when this happens. I firmly believe that
> great musicians will continue to make great music. But if they want to
> make money off their music, they will have to do what Rudi Vallee and
> Frank Sinatra did: PERFORM. And you'd better be damn good, too. 'Cuz
> Sinatra don't share da stage wit any old bum, capice?
>
> Yet recordists need not fear. Musicians and songwriters will still
> want to record their music. The online distribution of their music
> will occur, but it won't be as profitable. It will be like the early
> days of vinyl: your music will precede you, but you must wow the crowd
> if you want to earn your supper.

It'll still be advantageous for them to record for another reason... If
their songs get out on the networks and are well received they'll have more
people at their concerts. Concert planners might even decide who to invite
to play based on how many downloads a group of artists' songs have.
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 3:32:38 PM

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

Mike Rivers wrote:

> I don't advocate banning technology, but I do advocate letting it out
> before there's a means of shutting the barn door before the horse
> escapes. Say you're part of a BitTorrent network that distributes new
> software for a router. What, other than your honesty, is stopping you
> from putting a commercial CD up for sharing among your fellow router
> users over your otherwise legitimate network? Is there some sort of
> security that can be imposed that either makes your shared directory
> invisible to someone who isn't in the club or blocks transfer from that
> directory for those without permission?

That may be a good idea, but it's not a requirement.

The court decision from last summer (again, Federal court but not Supreme
court) ruled against the idea of requiring technology developers to build
safeguards like this into their technology. You don't have to build your
product necessarily so that it makes the entertainment industry happy.

I think the court is actually striking a pretty reasonable balance. They
want to help protect copyright owners against outright theft, but they
don't want to stifle innovation. It's a fine line that they're trying to
walk. And indeed, it is very clear that this new technology is going to
shake up the industry - it's not at all clear what new business models
are going to emerge, but it is clear that the industry isn't going to be
able to use the courts to solve all of these problems. Eventually, a set
of new business models will emerge that take new technology into account,
and there will be some winners and some losers (and some whiners, too <g>).

This is a time of rapid change in content distribution. A bad court
decision could severely limit the development of some very interesting
technologies. I think the court is wise to tread very carefully.
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 3:53:50 PM

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

what get's me about these laws is not that they are protecting
copyright for big music companies and big artists etc, but that the law
has no provisions in it to protect the consumer. For years the record
companies fixed cd prices and and got a slap on the wrist for doing so.
It was clear that consumers wanted the choice of buying singular
songs and customizing CD's long before it was easily done with
computers, and the ability to do was there for the companies, but they
wanted to make sure everyone bought the whole cow. In what can only be
viewed as anti-trust violations by the record companies in collusion
with the RIAA, the consumer was denied this ability. Only after the
P2P networks evolved did they decide they should try to give consumers
what they wanted.

I wonder how much money could be traced flowing from the RIAA and the
record companies to the sponsors of this bill in congress. I bet a ton
of it.

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com
June 29, 2005 4:20:12 PM

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

There is no one *single* purpose to using either a VCR or P2P networks.
It's not that *the* intended purpose was time shifting. That was
*one* intended purpose. The case was decided on the fact that there
were legitimate available uses in addition to the illegitimate ones.
It's nonsense to say that the *only* use of a P2P network is stealing
music and movies. That's blantantly and obviously untrue.

I'm by no means in favour of stealing music, but your argument smacks
of the "ends justifying the means". You seem to be saying that because
the Supreme Court has made it more difficult to breach copyright (a
good thing), the decision must necessarily be correct in its reasoning.
Other negative consequences be damned.
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 8:41:50 PM

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

In article <42c2bf17$0$15751$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> usemylastname@cheerful.com writes:

> > . . but I do advocate letting it out

That's "don't advocate letting it out" of course.

> > What, other than your honesty, is stopping you
> > from putting a commercial CD up for sharing among your fellow router
> > users over your otherwise legitimate network? Is there some sort of
> > security that can be imposed

> That may be a good idea, but it's not a requirement.

No, but it would be a darn good idea for a network enabler who now
knows that he might he on the hook if there's a good enough lawyer
fighting him. I don't know how BitTorrent.org makes money, but if I
were them, either I'd have security enabled at the start or plan to
make some money and then get out of the business before the trouble
starts.

> The court decision from last summer (again, Federal court but not Supreme
> court) ruled against the idea of requiring technology developers to build
> safeguards like this into their technology. You don't have to build your
> product necessarily so that it makes the entertainment industry happy.

Isn't there some requirement for gun locks now? Different industry,
same principle.

> I think the court is actually striking a pretty reasonable balance. They
> want to help protect copyright owners against outright theft, but they
> don't want to stifle innovation.

Right - I have no problem with the Supreme Court decision, but without
a way to detect when there has been a copyright violation, it really
doesn't make any difference.

> And indeed, it is very clear that this new technology is going to
> shake up the industry

How is BitTorrent any different to the industry than Napster and
Grokster and whatever other file sharing technologies are out there
now? It's more efficient maybe, but people who want to steal will put
up with annoyances. And people who want to buy can do so fairly easily
right now. The industry has been shaken up already.


--
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
June 29, 2005 9:16:57 PM

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

Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> How is BitTorrent any different to the industry than Napster and
> Grokster and whatever other file sharing technologies are out there

Torrents are essentially just links, which you need in order to find the
file.

Grokster, Napster, etc. index and find files all over the network.
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 9:17:36 PM

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

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <3iedvdFl7qvfU1@individual.net> kurt@nv.net writes:
>
>
>> I use BitTorrent several time a month for the sole purpose of acquiring
>> software updates -- and have never used it to transfer copyrighted
>> material (with or without permission.)
>
>
> Aren't software updates copyright?

Copyleft, in the case of the software I'm using.
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 10:29:34 PM

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

In article <1120071230.698583.280030@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> madelefant@gmail.com writes:

> what get's me about these laws is not that they are protecting
> copyright for big music companies and big artists etc, but that the law
> has no provisions in it to protect the consumer.

Of course there is. The consumer is free to use the technology and the
provider is free to provide it as long as it isn't used to violate a
law. I'd say that's protecting the consumer.

> It was clear that consumers wanted the choice of buying singular
> songs and customizing CD's long before it was easily done with
> computers, and the ability to do was there for the companies, but they
> wanted to make sure everyone bought the whole cow.

Laws can't regulate what people sell unless it's something that's
otherwise illegal. Why didn't consumers who didn't like this rebel by
not buying CDs? Apparently enough people are still buying them so that
the record companies still make them. Maybe they'll change, but it'll
be because the market tells them to, not that people steal what they
want rather than buying it.

When there are artists who say "Sure, I'll record just one song
instead of twelve, and take 1/12 the amount I normally get from
making a CD." then you'll get what you want. Until then, the record
companies are just playing with you and making them think you're
getting what you want.


--
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
June 30, 2005 1:23:11 AM

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

Mike Rivers wrote:
>
>>And indeed, it is very clear that this new technology is going to
>>shake up the industry
>
> How is BitTorrent any different to the industry than Napster and
> Grokster and whatever other file sharing technologies are out there
> now? It's more efficient maybe, but people who want to steal will put
> up with annoyances. And people who want to buy can do so fairly easily
> right now. The industry has been shaken up already.

Right, I was just speaking (very) generally, not about Bit Torrent in
particular, in fact, not even just about file sharing. But in the
broadest terms, the internet gives us a variety of new ways to distribute
content, and the industry is going to have to figure out what to do with
it. The industry may have been shaken up already, but I suspect that the
worst is yet to come.
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 8:53:25 AM

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

On 29 Jun 2005 09:25:45 -0400, Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>
> In article <3iedvdFl7qvfU1@individual.net> kurt@nv.net writes:
>
>> I use BitTorrent several time a month for the sole purpose of acquiring
>> software updates -- and have never used it to transfer copyrighted
>> material (with or without permission.)
>
> Aren't software updates copyright?
>
> What software companies are using BitTorrent to distribute their
> updates?

Many FOSS projects are distributed via BitTorrent. Some of the
server site subscriptions use that--where the IT geeks run a Linux
backend and pay for a commercial distro or support package for just that
reason.

Blizard distributes World of Warcraft updates via BitTorrent (or
something that operates similarly), as do a number of other MMOGs.

Not everyone is wedded to "Download a 30MB monolith from our server"
model of software updates.
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 2:06:44 PM

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

"Citizen Ted" <enoid801DUMP@THIScomcast.net> wrote in message
news:n0g6c1th8j8plgfo3pjqaldg5l17jstaed@4ax.com...
> But yes, the role of the recording studio will become limited. As home
> recording technology continues to advance and improve, more and more
> artists will do the work themselves. Those that opt to seek a
> professional will likely find a humble, straightforward studio. The
> four piece punk outfit will not need the services of a 64-channel Neve
> desk.

You make it sound like equipment can replace talent. How is "better"
recording eqipment going to help position microphones or make a mix sound
better? As it is now, the required eqipment can be had at a low enough price
that anyone can get it.

When I go to the doctor, it's not the facilities or medical equipment that I
need, but his expertise. It's the same with professional audio. After all,
you could give me the same setup that someone like Doug Sax or Bob Ludwig
would use for mastering and I could never get the quality of results that
they could.

Stuart
July 1, 2005 7:07:06 PM

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

In article <U7OdnbxSK7SM91jfRVn-hg@comcast.com>,
StuartRemoveThisWelwood@comcast.net says...
>
> "Citizen Ted" <enoid801DUMP@THIScomcast.net> wrote in message
> news:n0g6c1th8j8plgfo3pjqaldg5l17jstaed@4ax.com...
> > But yes, the role of the recording studio will become limited. As home
> > recording technology continues to advance and improve, more and more
> > artists will do the work themselves. Those that opt to seek a
> > professional will likely find a humble, straightforward studio. The
> > four piece punk outfit will not need the services of a 64-channel Neve
> > desk.
>
> You make it sound like equipment can replace talent. How is "better"
> recording eqipment going to help position microphones or make a mix sound
> better? As it is now, the required eqipment can be had at a low enough price
> that anyone can get it.

People don't care about quality. Witness the proliferation of mp3's,
while audio pros complain about a CD's 16/44.1 quality. As long as
the music is contiguous, free of pops, and cheap, the general public
doesn't seem to give a damn whether it's bandwidth limited and over
compressed.
--
---Mikhael...
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 9:58:23 PM

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

Here's an interesting article, the BitTorrent idea has generally
been considered "clean" as far as the intentions of its creator (and
somehow, with having read very little about it over the years, that's
the impression I've had), but now there's this Wired article:

"BitTorrent Whiz Extolled Piracy?"
BitTorrent programmer Bram Cohen may be in legal jeopardy after the
discovery on Wednesday of an old agenda buried on his website saying
he creates programs to "commit digital piracy."

The polemic would have been of little interest a week ago. But on
Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the intent behind a file-sharing
program can be a decisive factor in determining whether the creator
can be sued for its users' copyright infringement.

Cohen said the agenda was written years before he started work on
BitTorrent, and that it was written as a parody of other manifestos.

"I wrote that in 1999, and I didn't even start working on BitTorrent
until 2001," Cohen said. "I find it really unpleasant that I even have
to worry about it."

More of the article at:
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,68046,00.html...


On 28 Jun 2005 08:25:58 -0400, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>I can't believe it. More than 12 hours after the Supreme Court
>decision on file sharing over the Internet. They didn't offer "the
>...
-----
http://www.mindspring.com/~benbradley
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 9:58:24 PM

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

>
> Cohen said the agenda was written years before he started work on
> BitTorrent, and that it was written as a parody of other manifestos.
>

Not exactly sure I see the humor in that...

Sounds a bit like the old "I wasn't threatening to kill the bank clerk by
sticking my gun in his face. T'was just a joke!"
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 10:04:10 PM

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

In article <U7OdnbxSK7SM91jfRVn-hg@comcast.com> StuartRemoveThisWelwood@comcast.net writes:

> You make it sound like equipment can replace talent. How is "better"
> recording eqipment going to help position microphones or make a mix sound
> better? As it is now, the required eqipment can be had at a low enough price
> that anyone can get it.

Listened to much pop music lately, particular that which is
home-produced? Most all the instruments are VST plug-ins or rendered
samples. There might be only one microphone around, and that's to
record the vocal. Mixing is largely putting it all into a funnel and
making sure that the vocal is up high enough. The instrument sounds
are all leveled by nature, and the vocal will have been compressed by
10 to 20 dB so all that's needed is to set the levels so that they
don't sum to an overload condition.

> When I go to the doctor, it's not the facilities or medical equipment that I
> need, but his expertise.

You must still have a real doctor. Most of them today aren't a lot
different than home recordists. They still need the education to get
the gig, but they have to use all the latest equipment for diagnostic
testing to keep from getting sued too badly.

> After all,
> you could give me the same setup that someone like Doug Sax or Bob Ludwig
> would use for mastering and I could never get the quality of results that
> they could.

That's true, but then you probaby wouldn't get the gigs or the money
that they get, either.

--
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
July 4, 2005 5:30:15 PM

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

David Grant wrote:
>>Cohen said the agenda was written years before he started work on
>>BitTorrent, and that it was written as a parody of other manifestos.
>>
>
>
> Not exactly sure I see the humor in that...
>
> Sounds a bit like the old "I wasn't threatening to kill the bank clerk by
> sticking my gun in his face. T'was just a joke!"
>
>
>
But illustrates how imaginable it is that a cop on his coffee break
might hold up a gun and joke about how many banks he could rob with it.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 9:13:56 PM

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

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <1120071230.698583.280030@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> madelefant@gmail.com writes:
>
> > what get's me about these laws is not that they are protecting
> > copyright for big music companies and big artists etc, but that the law
> > has no provisions in it to protect the consumer.
>
> Of course there is. The consumer is free to use the technology and the
> provider is free to provide it as long as it isn't used to violate a
> law. I'd say that's protecting the consumer.
>
> > It was clear that consumers wanted the choice of buying singular
> > songs and customizing CD's long before it was easily done with
> > computers, and the ability to do was there for the companies, but they
> > wanted to make sure everyone bought the whole cow.
>
> Laws can't regulate what people sell unless it's something that's
> otherwise illegal.


Mike collaboration by separate companies in order to inflate prices is
illegal under antitrust laws because it limits competition and that is
why record companies were sued and assessed damages.

As regards illegal file swapping and consumer rights, a consumer is
considered to have fair use rights. If record companies are allowed to
go to extraordinary lengths than moderate lengths should be protected
for consumers. Such as, a consumer being able to register their
purchase of particular songs so that if they buy a CD and the CD is
damaged they still have the digital right to use what they have
purchased. Lots of people trading files are replacing items they have
purchased and were damaged. And CD's are not better than vinyl by any
means. They are easily damaged. A consumer who has previously
purchased the item should not be subject to prosecution if it has been
damaged and they need to replace what they had already purchased.

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 3:06:07 AM

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

Lugnuts wrote:

> As regards illegal file swapping and consumer rights, a consumer is
> considered to have fair use rights.

If he has clear access. He is in _no_ way given the right
of clear access.

> If record companies are allowed to
> go to extraordinary lengths than moderate lengths should be protected
> for consumers. Such as, a consumer being able to register their
> purchase of particular songs so that if they buy a CD and the CD is
> damaged they still have the digital right to use what they have
> purchased. Lots of people trading files are replacing items they have
> purchased and were damaged.

Should this right of replacement be extended to everything
purchased or is there something that makes media essentially
different?

> And CD's are not better than vinyl by any
> means. They are easily damaged. A consumer who has previously
> purchased the item should not be subject to prosecution if it has been
> damaged and they need to replace what they had already purchased.

If a consumer breaks something he has purchased he has no
rights to replacement, legal or otherwise. God help us if
he did.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 11:00:07 AM

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

In article <1120695236.437224.266180@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> madelefant@gmail.com writes:

> Mike collaboration by separate companies in order to inflate prices is
> illegal under antitrust laws because it limits competition and that is
> why record companies were sued and assessed damages.

This has been argued and it's a non-issue.

> As regards illegal file swapping and consumer rights, a consumer is
> considered to have fair use rights.

There's fair use (what you think is fair) and "fair use" which is
defined in the copyright laws. It's not fair use to make a copy of
a recording that you bought and allow others to make copies from the
copy on your computer.

> If record companies are allowed to
> go to extraordinary lengths than moderate lengths should be protected
> for consumers. Such as, a consumer being able to register their
> purchase of particular songs so that if they buy a CD and the CD is
> damaged they still have the digital right to use what they have
> purchased.

If my car is damaged, who's going to give me free rides? CDs don't get
damaged that often. If you leave your CDs in the sun and they get
ruined, you have only yourself to blame. You are, however, allowed (by
fair use) to make a back-up copy. But if you don't do that before your
CD gets trashed, you can't expect the record company to give you a new
copy just because you paid them once.

> Lots of people trading files are replacing items they have
> purchased and were damaged.

Oh, horseshit!

Some people purchase copy protected CDs and claim that they're
damaged from the get-go because they can't rip them in their
computers. Let 'em make analog copies. As long as they use the
copy for a legitimate reason (a backup) it's legal. But if they put
it up for grabs on a P2P network, it's not legal.


--
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
July 7, 2005 6:12:45 PM

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

On 7/7/05 2:06 AM, in article daigo6016ce@enews2.newsguy.com, "Bob Cain"
<arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:

>
>
> Lugnuts wrote:
>
>> As regards illegal file swapping and consumer rights, a consumer is
>> considered to have fair use rights.
>
> If he has clear access. He is in _no_ way given the right
> of clear access.
>
>> If record companies are allowed to
>> go to extraordinary lengths than moderate lengths should be protected
>> for consumers. Such as, a consumer being able to register their
>> purchase of particular songs so that if they buy a CD and the CD is
>> damaged they still have the digital right to use what they have
>> purchased. Lots of people trading files are replacing items they have
>> purchased and were damaged.
>
> Should this right of replacement be extended to everything
> purchased or is there something that makes media essentially
> different?
>
>> And CD's are not better than vinyl by any
>> means. They are easily damaged. A consumer who has previously
>> purchased the item should not be subject to prosecution if it has been
>> damaged and they need to replace what they had already purchased.


It's clear, but muddled by the damned choices made to try and better a bad
situation:
You indeed purchase the RIGHT TO USE the recording, and with that comes a
single COPY of it for your use. You don;t actually OWN the thing. You own
Limited Rights to enjoy the recording. When the only way to enjoy said
recording was to posses a solid chunk of media that incorporated it, the
COST of making that THING involved Big Manufactiring Expenses and indeed if
you DAMAGED it, then, while you still owned the RIGHT to enjoy it, the COST
of replacing the THING had to be born and that COST was WAY higher than the
part of your money that paid for the RIGHTS. Your purchase-cost covered the
RIGHTS (which involved all the folks that contracturally were included in
those rights from the artist thru the marketting people) PLUS the cost of
making the THING that held it. The cost of replacing your lost/broken/ruined
copy on a one-by-one basis would be rediculous and it made much more sense
to just buy a replacement and nobody really fought about the few-percent of
that price that paid redundantly for the RIGHTS again, the cost of the THING
was predominantly what you were bearing and that's fine. Pragmatism wins.
How that gets implemented when a listenable copy is merely data implies a
tracking system that shows thet YOU indeed -did- pay for the
enjoyment-rights to the copy in your posession and THAT sort of thing is
what's getting fought intellectually ('Information should be Freeeee!!") and
subverted regularly by all manner of tag-removal. That it's a difficult
problem in NO way makes it in ANY way ok to go with the (and ALL arguments
come round to this...) "I can have it free cuz you can;t stop me!" idiocy.



>
> If a consumer breaks something he has purchased he has no
> rights to replacement, legal or otherwise. God help us if
> he did
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 9:09:50 PM

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

"SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote:
>
> it made much more sense to just buy a replacement


My wife and I were recently talking about what happens if you
accidentally delete or corrupt a song purchased from the iTunes Music
Store.

We decided not to worry about it, since it's only a buck. The cost of
replacement is so low that it's not worth exploring alternatives.

Though I guess if my hard drive failed with several hundred songs on it
I might be more concerned...

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 9:17:50 PM

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

On 7/7/05 1:09 PM, in article yldze.100984$HI.60142@edtnps84, "Lorin David
Schultz" <Lorin@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca> wrote:

> "SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote:
>>
>> it made much more sense to just buy a replacement
>
>
> My wife and I were recently talking about what happens if you
> accidentally delete or corrupt a song purchased from the iTunes Music
> Store.

Does itunes keep a record of the transaction?
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 9:21:39 PM

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

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>
> Some people purchase copy protected CDs and claim that they're
> damaged from the get-go because they can't rip them in their
> computers.


It's murkier than that.

Since I discovered iTunes and bought an Airport, my computer is my
primary music playback device. Copy protected discs affect my
*legitimate* use of the product.

As for making an analog copy: first, why should I have to, and second,
from what? I sold my last stand-alone CD player over a year ago.

There's also the example I've mentioned before of one of my Sound
Effects libraries. We inserted one of the discs into the Mac to rip a
sound for a production and the copy protection froze the machine. As a
licensed user who paid for the rights, the inability to use the product
for a legitimate application is quite frustrating.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 9:38:11 PM

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

"SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote:
>
> Does itunes keep a record of the transaction?



Who knows, maybe. The point was that when it's only a buck, we probably
wouldn't even bother pursuing a "free" replacement. It's a worth a buck
to save the time and effort involved in tracking it down.

Besides, buying it again puts more coin in the artist's pocket and
resets the counter on playlist burns allowed.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 10:47:16 PM

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

In article <yldze.100984$HI.60142@edtnps84> Lorin@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca writes:

> My wife and I were recently talking about what happens if you
> accidentally delete or corrupt a song purchased from the iTunes Music
> Store.
>
> We decided not to worry about it, since it's only a buck. The cost of
> replacement is so low that it's not worth exploring alternatives.

> Though I guess if my hard drive failed with several hundred songs on it
> I might be more concerned...

This is a concern of any studio who stores files on a hard drive, too.
Most of us say we're careful about backups, and most of us never get a
chance to prove how careful we really are. But a few times a year we
see posts from people who who have lost a whole project or several
projects because of a disk failure or accidental bit scrambling for
one reason or another. If the disk drive was under warranty, you could
get a new drive, but they wouldn't pay for the loss of time or all the
musicians you have to re-hire.

Think of it as live music that you can hear again, at least for some
time.

--
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
July 8, 2005 12:30:38 AM

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

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 17:38:11 GMT, Lorin David Schultz
<Lorin@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca> wrote:
> "SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote:
>>
>> Does itunes keep a record of the transaction?
>
>
>
> Who knows, maybe. The point was that when it's only a buck, we probably
> wouldn't even bother pursuing a "free" replacement. It's a worth a buck
> to save the time and effort involved in tracking it down.
>
> Besides, buying it again puts more coin in the artist's pocket and
> resets the counter on playlist burns allowed.
>

I've been waiting for YEARS for the music industry to figure that out.

Used to be that I could buy a single 45 for what? A quarter?

Then the single went away.

"Hey, it's only a buck" is what they should have done years ago. Even
if it took a Napster to tell them that there was a VAST market for
singles they were ignoring, they still should have gotten on board that
train as soon as they realized it was leaving the station.

Hell, it's their damn Business. They shoulda had that figured out YEARS
before Napster.

My cable company narrowcasts. It's owned by (iirc) Time-Warner. So
they know what people want in TV and imagine they want something
different in music.

(and yes, I DO think they deserve their money, and think they should
make even more money by digitizing their entire back catalog so that
nothing EVER really went out of print. . . . if they don't, and someone
puts it up for free, it's their own damn fault)

(I had a similar situation with a piece of choir music. "Out of Print"
and no copies available anywhere at any price. "What if I photo copy it
and send you a buck a copy," "No, we can't let you do that" . . . Guess
who didn't get $100 from a sale to my choir that year? FINALLY some
publishers are wising up to the fact that if they sell repro rights to a
pdf file they no longer have to pay to ship large boxes of paper
everywhere, but it took 'em YEARS to figure that out)
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 12:32:50 AM

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

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 17:21:39 GMT, Lorin David Schultz
<Lorin@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca> wrote:
> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>>
>> Some people purchase copy protected CDs and claim that they're
>> damaged from the get-go because they can't rip them in their
>> computers.
>
>
> It's murkier than that.
>
> Since I discovered iTunes and bought an Airport, my computer is my
> primary music playback device. Copy protected discs affect my
> *legitimate* use of the product.
>
> As for making an analog copy: first, why should I have to, and second,
> from what? I sold my last stand-alone CD player over a year ago.
>

I've been using the CD-ROM on my Linux server to rip "protected" CDs.

Works a treat, though that machine has no sound card or speakers.

Desktops are all WinXP
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 12:32:51 AM

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

In article <Sjgze.397869$cg1.203366@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Charles Krug <cdkrug@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 17:21:39 GMT, Lorin David Schultz
><Lorin@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca> wrote:
>> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Some people purchase copy protected CDs and claim that they're
>>> damaged from the get-go because they can't rip them in their
>>> computers.
>>
There is no such thing as a copy protected CD. Look closely if you
have one around and you will see that the CD symbol is NOT on the
disc.
>>
>I've been using the CD-ROM on my Linux server to rip "protected" CDs.
>
I usually refer to them as copy resistant (or coasters), but they
aren't (by definition) CDs and aren't allowed to use the Compact
Disc name or Logo. And yep, Linux deals with them nicely most of
the time.

>Works a treat, though that machine has no sound card or speakers.

Most of my Linux machines have soundcards, but only one is connected
to speakers. Actually to a mixer--too many computers in the back bedroom/
machine room. As to the others, who cares whether a router or a server
has sound. Most of the time most of my Linux systems are running
without keyboards, mouses, or monitors.

>Desktops are all WinXP
>
No problem as long as you have ssh and VNC. You can start at least 20
instances of putty on a WinXP desktop with no problem at all.


-ray
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 12:55:38 AM

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

In article <Ohgze.397858$cg1.345039@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> cdkrug@worldnet.att.net writes:

> Used to be that I could buy a single 45 for what? A quarter?
> Then the single went away.

Well, I don't remember a single for a quarter, but occasionaly they
were under a dollar.

Singles always used to come out before albums, and if the single took
off, they'd get the artist back into the studio and record an album.
Meanwhile, the artist was making money by doing real gigs.

Now, they do things backwards. An artist/songwriter records a CD and
has a dozen songs paying him royalties so he doesn't have to work
other than to go back in the studio and make another CD. If all he
released was a single, he'd get a much smaller royalty check and he'd
have to get a real job.


--
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
July 8, 2005 7:54:51 AM

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

Lorin David Schultz wrote:

> "SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote:
>
>>it made much more sense to just buy a replacement
>
>
>
> My wife and I were recently talking about what happens if you
> accidentally delete or corrupt a song purchased from the iTunes Music
> Store.
>
> We decided not to worry about it, since it's only a buck. The cost of
> replacement is so low that it's not worth exploring alternatives.
>
> Though I guess if my hard drive failed with several hundred songs on it
> I might be more concerned...
>

You are specifically prohibited from backing the things up?

Ruh roh.

--
Les Cargill
!