Doonesbury

[Guest]

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

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:d07djd$j2s$1@panix2.panix.com

> If you get a chance, look at "Sony Corporation vs. Universal Studios,"
> otherwise known as the Betamax case. The supreme court does a very
> good job of laying out both sides of the argument and it is also well
> worth reading the dissenting opinion because the minority justices
> take on some issues of ownership that the majority wasn't willing to do.

http/cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/integrity/Links/Cases/sony.html

> It has been years since I have read the thing but I am sure the full
> text of the decision is on the web somewhere.
> --scott

 

[Guest]

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

Bill Van Dyk wrote:

> The photocopier comparison is really quite apt.

It's even less apt than the radio-to-cassette argument. A photocopier
was on the order of 75 dpi initially, some still are, and that is
nothing like the bit-for-bit duping trivially available in your home
computer. The resulting "copy" bears little actual resemblence to the
original, if you care for detail.

Why don't folks making these borderline irrelevant "observations" ever
stop to think about what they're not thinking about? I guess some people
don't care for detail, especially when dickscussing these whizbangerooby
technewlogical eventualities.

--
ha

 

[Guest]

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

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1gsuajm.1f332g299vf4wN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
> Bill Van Dyk wrote:
>
>> The photocopier comparison is really quite apt.
>
> It's even less apt than the radio-to-cassette argument. A photocopier
> was on the order of 75 dpi initially, some still are, and that is
> nothing like the bit-for-bit duping trivially available in your home
> computer. The resulting "copy" bears little actual resemblence to the
> original, if you care for detail.
>
> Why don't folks making these borderline irrelevant "observations" ever
> stop to think about what they're not thinking about? I guess some people
> don't care for detail, especially when dickscussing these whizbangerooby
> technewlogical eventualities.


Irrelevant is a good word to use since most of you with opposing views have
never even used p2p networks. Your opinion is pretty irrelevant when you
have absolutely no experience to draw from. Yet you have still found your
way to the top of your soap box.

-hev

 

[Guest]

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

hev wrote:

> Irrelevant is a good word to use since most of you with opposing views have
> never even used p2p networks. Your opinion is pretty irrelevant when you
> have absolutely no experience to draw from. Yet you have still found your
> way to the top of your soap box.

There is no logic in that at all. Whether we have used it
or not, we know what use of it impacts various industries
including audio.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

 

[Guest]

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

Bill Van Dyk wrote:
> You talk as if you sincerely believe that the current model, the one
> that is threatened by downloading and digital copying, is deserving of
> respect and support. Good for you. Not everybody believes that.
>
> Some reasonable people could argue, I suppose, that with all the flaws
> in the current system, it could be fixed and could work well.
> Personally, I think it is rather corrupt and bloated and inefficient.
>
> One thing that would be nice to hear occasionally from those who really
> believe in the RIAA: some candor about supporting the "artists". Either
> you believe the innumerable stories of artists getting ripped off and
> exploited and cheated (like Tom Petty, Michelle Shocked, Counting Crows,
> Byrds, Beatles, etc., etc., etc.) or you don't, but it would take a
> remarkable leap of faith to believe that they could be treated any worse
> under a new system.
>
> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> I really don't care what system is in place or what industry controls or
doesn;t control it as long as it isn't based on theft
George

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 18:52:13 GMT, George Gleason
<g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Bill Van Dyk wrote:
>> You talk as if you sincerely believe that the current model, the one
>> that is threatened by downloading and digital copying, is deserving of
>> respect and support. Good for you. Not everybody believes that.
>>
>> Some reasonable people could argue, I suppose, that with all the flaws
>> in the current system, it could be fixed and could work well.
>> Personally, I think it is rather corrupt and bloated and inefficient.
>>
>> One thing that would be nice to hear occasionally from those who really
>> believe in the RIAA: some candor about supporting the "artists". Either
>> you believe the innumerable stories of artists getting ripped off and
>> exploited and cheated (like Tom Petty, Michelle Shocked, Counting Crows,
>> Byrds, Beatles, etc., etc., etc.) or you don't, but it would take a
>> remarkable leap of faith to believe that they could be treated any worse
>> under a new system.
>>
>> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
>> I really don't care what system is in place or what industry controls or
>doesn;t control it as long as it isn't based on theft

I think the point he was making was that in some ways the modern music
industry has been based on theft from the beginning. It may have been
legal theft, but it was still theft, and that history doesn't earn the
record companies a lot of cred or sympathy for their current moral
stance.

Al

 

[Guest]

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

hev wrote:

> Irrelevant is a good word to use since most of you with opposing views have
> never even used p2p networks. Your opinion is pretty irrelevant when you
> have absolutely no experience to draw from. Yet you have still found your
> way to the top of your soap box.

What the hell does my not using p2p have to do with the fact you are a
thief? I'm supposed to use p2p and start stealing, too? Your lens has
fallen way out of focus.

--
ha

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 19:24:38 GMT, walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich)
wrote:

>hev wrote:
>
>> Irrelevant is a good word to use since most of you with opposing views have
>> never even used p2p networks. Your opinion is pretty irrelevant when you
>> have absolutely no experience to draw from. Yet you have still found your
>> way to the top of your soap box.
>
>What the hell does my not using p2p have to do with the fact you are a
>thief? I'm supposed to use p2p and start stealing, too? Your lens has
>fallen way out of focus.

Whether or not Hev is a thief, those who have not used this type of
software have not experienced how stunningly convenient and easy it is
to find files this way. If you have a strong opinion about it, it
*might* be useful to try the thing so that you can argue from an even
more informed position.

Al

 

[Guest]

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

"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:d07m6v0chn@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
>
> hev wrote:
>
>> Irrelevant is a good word to use since most of you with opposing views
>> have never even used p2p networks. Your opinion is pretty irrelevant when
>> you have absolutely no experience to draw from. Yet you have still found
>> your way to the top of your soap box.
>
> There is no logic in that at all. Whether we have used it or not, we know
> what use of it impacts various industries including audio.


Can you back that up with a link? Recent declines of record sales could have
more to do with lack of artist development than P2P.


--
-hev
remove "your opinion" to find me:
www.michaelYOURspringerOPINION.com
http/www.freeiPods.com/?r=14089013

 

[Guest]

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

"Kurt Albershardt" <kurt@nv.net> wrote in message news:38p91iF5n8avoU1@individual.net...
> Mike Rivers wrote:
> > In article <075d21lhohgk0cvmk3jbne72sg5qsmsk9p@4ax.com> chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net writes:
> >
> >
> >> I let my sweety name all the following cats. She now has fourteen
> >> indoors and is scrambling for names herself.
> >
> >
> > Geez, why can't people just have A cat? I can only think of one friend
> > who has only one cat.
>
>
> We have only one. He's twice the weight of the average housecat, though.


Been 'fixed', eh?

 

[Guest]

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

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> "Kurt Albershardt" <kurt@nv.net> wrote in message news:38p91iF5n8avoU1@individual.net...
>
>> Mike Rivers wrote:
>>
>>> In article <075d21lhohgk0cvmk3jbne72sg5qsmsk9p@4ax.com> chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net writes:
>>>
>>>> I let my sweety name all the following cats. She now has fourteen
>>>> indoors and is scrambling for names herself.
>>>
>>>
>>> Geez, why can't people just have A cat? I can only think of one friend
>>> who has only one cat.
>>
>>
>> We have only one. He's twice the weight of the average housecat, though.
>
>
> Been 'fixed', eh?

He's 19 pounds of lean, mean, rodent-killing machine. And yes, he's neutered--I can't *imagine* what he'd be like with a full hormone load.

Ask Hank (who is not really a cat person) about him...

 

[Guest]

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

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1gsui4v.13fo9il8dhbmN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
> hev wrote:
>
>> Irrelevant is a good word to use since most of you with opposing views
>> have
>> never even used p2p networks. Your opinion is pretty irrelevant when you
>> have absolutely no experience to draw from. Yet you have still found your
>> way to the top of your soap box.
>
> What the hell does my not using p2p have to do with the fact you are a
> thief? I'm supposed to use p2p and start stealing, too? Your lens has
> fallen way out of focus.


Another misconception by a non-p2p user. Not all files on p2p are illegal.
You can use P2P in a completely legal manner.

Want to share any more prejudices with us Hank?


--
-hev
remove "your opinion" to find me:
www.michaelYOURspringerOPINION.com
http/www.freeiPods.com/?r=14089013

 

[Guest]

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

> Mike Rivers wrote:
> > In article <075d21lhohgk0cvmk3jbne72sg5qsmsk9p@4ax.com>
chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net writes:
> >
> >
> >> I let my sweety name all the following cats. She now has fourteen
> >> indoors and is scrambling for names herself.
> >
> >
> > Geez, why can't people just have A cat? I can only think of one friend
> > who has only one cat.

Because A cat goes bonkers by itself and starts doing terrible things to the
house. Two is the optimum number. Fourteen seems a bit overboard.

Peace,
Paul

 

[Guest]

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

"play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message news:72te21htjrh9orjmk03qbqdglsmuknts4k@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 19:24:38 GMT, walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich)
> wrote:
>
> >hev wrote:
> >
> >> Irrelevant is a good word to use since most of you with opposing views have
> >> never even used p2p networks. Your opinion is pretty irrelevant when you
> >> have absolutely no experience to draw from. Yet you have still found your
> >> way to the top of your soap box.
> >
> >What the hell does my not using p2p have to do with the fact you are a
> >thief? I'm supposed to use p2p and start stealing, too? Your lens has
> >fallen way out of focus.
>
> Whether or not Hev is a thief, those who have not used this type of
> software have not experienced how stunningly convenient and easy it is
> to find files this way. If you have a strong opinion about it, it
> *might* be useful to try the thing so that you can argue from an even
> more informed position.
>
> Al


It's only convenient if some nut case has exposed his computer to be
accessed by anyone on the P2P network, and the computers that are
exposed just happen to have the title you're looking for.

Other 'stunningly convenient' happenings include packet loss, incorrectly
titled files, and being half finished with a long download and the machine
you're loading from is terminated, getting files that fools have manipulated
to their liking before making them available, and logging onto a fake peer
that has a computer full of files that are purposely corrupted and virus-laden,
yadda, yadda, yadda.... Yes, the wonderful world of P2P....

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 20:55:47 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
<mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:

>
>"play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message news:72te21htjrh9orjmk03qbqdglsmuknts4k@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 19:24:38 GMT, walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >hev wrote:
>> >
>> >> Irrelevant is a good word to use since most of you with opposing views have
>> >> never even used p2p networks. Your opinion is pretty irrelevant when you
>> >> have absolutely no experience to draw from. Yet you have still found your
>> >> way to the top of your soap box.
>> >
>> >What the hell does my not using p2p have to do with the fact you are a
>> >thief? I'm supposed to use p2p and start stealing, too? Your lens has
>> >fallen way out of focus.
>>
>> Whether or not Hev is a thief, those who have not used this type of
>> software have not experienced how stunningly convenient and easy it is
>> to find files this way. If you have a strong opinion about it, it
>> *might* be useful to try the thing so that you can argue from an even
>> more informed position.
>>
>> Al
>
>
>It's only convenient if some nut case has exposed his computer to be
>accessed by anyone on the P2P network, and the computers that are
>exposed just happen to have the title you're looking for.

"Exposed" to what? You have control what directories others can
access. You are likely to be less secure using Internet Explorer than
with a file sharing app. You primarily get viruses from email, not
from file sharing. A virus detection program can alert you to any
infected files you might download, but I can't recall that happening
to me more recently.

>Other 'stunningly convenient' happenings include packet loss, incorrectly
>titled files, and being half finished with a long download and the machine
>you're loading from is terminated, getting files that fools have manipulated
>to their liking before making them available, and logging onto a fake peer
>that has a computer full of files that are purposely corrupted and virus-laden,
>yadda, yadda, yadda.... Yes, the wonderful world of P2P....

So Hank, is this from your own experience, or is it hearsay? If it's
not from your own recent experience, I don't see how you can argue
credibly on the subject. I haven't had any real problems sharing
files, and neither has my stepdaughter, who is the download princess.
Are you aware of the recent development of super-efficient bit-torrent
file sharing? Things have come a long way since Napster, for better or
for worse.

Al

 

[Guest]

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

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
news:nRKVd.53454$uc.22958@trnddc08...
>
> "play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:72te21htjrh9orjmk03qbqdglsmuknts4k@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 19:24:38 GMT, walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >hev wrote:
>> >
>> >> Irrelevant is a good word to use since most of you with opposing views
>> >> have
>> >> never even used p2p networks. Your opinion is pretty irrelevant when
>> >> you
>> >> have absolutely no experience to draw from. Yet you have still found
>> >> your
>> >> way to the top of your soap box.
>> >
>> >What the hell does my not using p2p have to do with the fact you are a
>> >thief? I'm supposed to use p2p and start stealing, too? Your lens has
>> >fallen way out of focus.
>>
>> Whether or not Hev is a thief, those who have not used this type of
>> software have not experienced how stunningly convenient and easy it is
>> to find files this way. If you have a strong opinion about it, it
>> *might* be useful to try the thing so that you can argue from an even
>> more informed position.
>>
>> Al
>
>
> It's only convenient if some nut case has exposed his computer to be
> accessed by anyone on the P2P network, and the computers that are
> exposed just happen to have the title you're looking for.
>
> Other 'stunningly convenient' happenings include packet loss, incorrectly
> titled files, and being half finished with a long download and the machine
> you're loading from is terminated, getting files that fools have
> manipulated
> to their liking before making them available, and logging onto a fake peer
> that has a computer full of files that are purposely corrupted and
> virus-laden,
> yadda, yadda, yadda.... Yes, the wonderful world of P2P....


You have just explained why the industry could profit from the online world.
Simply attack the above weaknesses.
The industry missed the boat.. can they catch up?


--
-hev
remove "your opinion" to find me:
www.michaelYOURspringerOPINION.com

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 12:06:10 -0800, Kurt Albershardt <kurt@nv.net>
wrote:

>We have only one. He's twice the weight of the average housecat, though.

I have four cats (I'm watching two for my sister, and lay claim to the
other two). A friend of mine and his girlfriend came over recently,
and when she saw Al (my sister's cat) she went 'Ooo! Come here,
Monster!'

Al weighs about 11 lbs. I went and got my cat, Tolkien.

All 17 lbs of him.

As I walked out with him I said 'Al's not the monster. *This* is the
monster.'

All she could say was 'Oh... my... god.'

Someone once asked what I fed Tolkien to get him so big.

Before I could answer, another friend of mine deadpanned 'other cats'.
jtougas

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

e.e. cummings

 

[Guest]

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

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1gsuajm.1f332g299vf4wN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
> Bill Van Dyk wrote:
>
> > The photocopier comparison is really quite apt.
>
> It's even less apt than the radio-to-cassette argument. A photocopier
> was on the order of 75 dpi initially, some still are, and that is
> nothing like the bit-for-bit duping trivially available in your home
> computer. The resulting "copy" bears little actual resemblence to the
> original, if you care for detail.
>
> Why don't folks making these borderline irrelevant "observations" ever
> stop to think about what they're not thinking about? I guess some people
> don't care for detail, especially when dickscussing these whizbangerooby
> technewlogical eventualities.
>

I think the real difference is one of scale. It's problematic, because the
nature of the act of 'sharing' isn't any different, just the scale.
Distributing a bootleg over p2p would be akin to having 1000 industrial
photocopiers and being able to distribute a copy of a book nearly
instantaneously to anyone in the world, at no charge. The nature of the
copying isn't different, I think that may be the legal riddle.

jb

 

[Guest]

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

"hev"

>
> Sure thing, here are two... one more serious than the other:
> http/tinyurl.com/6wpum
> http/tinyurl.com/6rehm
>

I'm not clear who 'the rich' are and who 'the poor' are that you are
referring to in the robin hood reference.

jb

 

[Guest]

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

"play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message ...

> You are likely to be less secure using Internet Explorer than
> with a file sharing app. You primarily get viruses from email, not
> from file sharing. A virus detection program can alert you to any
> infected files you might download, but I can't recall that happening
> to me more recently.

If I had a dollar for every song with the Kazaa Virus that I've removed from
people's PCs, I could buy a nice ProTools setup. If I had a dollar for every
removal of a virus itself that came from file sharing alone, I could at least
buy me, you Hev & hank a nice steak dinner and a bottle of good wine.

> >Other 'stunningly convenient' happenings include packet loss, incorrectly
> >titled files, and being half finished with a long download and the machine
> >you're loading from is terminated, getting files that fools have manipulated
> >to their liking before making them available, and logging onto a fake peer
> >that has a computer full of files that are purposely corrupted and virus-laden,
> >yadda, yadda, yadda.... Yes, the wonderful world of P2P....

> So Hank, is this from your own experience, or is it hearsay?

Well, I said that... and some of it is from my own experiences on other
people's computers with P2P software installed, but most of it is just
from watching others. Admittedly, none of this is any more recent than
about three years ago. As I mentioned before, my mother and stepfather
were using Napster years ago, before they understood exactly what it was
that they were doing.

DM