Doonesbury

[Guest]

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

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
news:WnMVd.65852$Dc.64613@trnddc06...
>
> "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,

Hey, I do have a dollar for each one. Unfortuneately, I had to spend it on
food and stuff instead of my studio.

jb

 

[Guest]

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

"play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1b8c21pnbi9cuif28iah1hu6po2koaijg8@4ax.com...
> On 2 Mar 2005 09:29:30 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:
>
> >
> >In article <lgja21tmv3fibed19hu1mb4ujnrecinks6@4ax.com>
playonAT@comcast.net writes:
> >
> >> Seriously though, it's pretty hard to get some kids to understand why
> >> they should pay for something that they view as if it was fruit
> >> hanging on a tree.
> >
> >Well, you're supposed to pay for that too, or not take it, if it's not
> >your tree.
>
> Ever tried enforcing that, if the tree hangs out into the street?
>

It depends on where you live, but in some places, because the tree isn't
supposed to hang into the public street, the fruit does not legally belong
to you even if it is your tree.

jb

 

[Guest]

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

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1109850578k@trad...
>
> 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. All the others either have none (like me) or two
> or more. (and, yes, they're fixed so two don't make more)
>

My cat isn't really into other animals except as rivals for food or food.

jb

 

[Guest]

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

On 3 Mar 2005 10:15:14 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:

>Geez, why can't people just have A cat? I can only think of one friend
>who has only one cat. All the others either have none (like me) or two
>or more. (and, yes, they're fixed so two don't make more)

"One cat just leads to another."

Ernest Hemingway had about a hundred, and their descendents are
still living at his home (in Florida?).

We trap and neuter stray cats, and proselytize about pet
neutering, if given an opening. Y'all have been warned.

Chris Hornbeck
"There are no ordinary cats". -Collette

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 20:32:01 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
<pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote:

>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.

Ginny thinks so too. It happened last summer when we rescued a mama
cat and her seven kittens. She couldn't part with any of them, and
so it goes. Her house looks like a Kliban cartoon.

OTOH, I'm down to just two, and it feels really lonely here.

Chris Hornbeck
"There are no ordinary cats". -Colette

 

[Guest]

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

play on <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:

> 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.

So let's rip off the artists now to show them damn rekurd companies just
what we think of 'em!

--
ha

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 03:47:09 GMT, walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich)
wrote:

>play on <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>So let's rip off the artists now to show them damn rekurd companies just
>what we think of 'em!

It's interesting that the companies seem to be complaining a lot more
than the artists are.

Al

 

[john]

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

On 3/3/05 10:50 PM, in article oIydncpnaovlRLrfRVn-2w@adelphia.com,
"reddred" <opaloka@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> wrote:

>
> "play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1b8c21pnbi9cuif28iah1hu6po2koaijg8@4ax.com...
>> On 2 Mar 2005 09:29:30 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In article <lgja21tmv3fibed19hu1mb4ujnrecinks6@4ax.com>
> playonAT@comcast.net writes:
>>>
>>>> Seriously though, it's pretty hard to get some kids to understand why
>>>> they should pay for something that they view as if it was fruit
>>>> hanging on a tree.
>>>
>>> Well, you're supposed to pay for that too, or not take it, if it's not
>>> your tree.
>>
>> Ever tried enforcing that, if the tree hangs out into the street?
>>
>
> It depends on where you live, but in some places, because the tree isn't
> supposed to hang into the public street, the fruit does not legally belong
> to you even if it is your tree.

However the music-theft concept would be more akin to someone stealing fruit
off an open street-vendor display and claiming that the above concept
applied...

 

[Guest]

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

"play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message news:veqf21d7ummqrdjkm2evs71toscrpnk0e5@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 03:47:09 GMT, walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich)
> wrote:
>
> >play on <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >So let's rip off the artists now to show them damn rekurd companies just
> >what we think of 'em!
>
> It's interesting that the companies seem to be complaining a lot more
> than the artists are.
>
> Al

Ask any artist... the company is paid damned well to represent them.

DM

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 06:11:16 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
<mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:

>
>"play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message news:veqf21d7ummqrdjkm2evs71toscrpnk0e5@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 03:47:09 GMT, walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >play on <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >So let's rip off the artists now to show them damn rekurd companies just
>> >what we think of 'em!
>>
>> It's interesting that the companies seem to be complaining a lot more
>> than the artists are.
>>
>> Al
>
>Ask any artist... the company is paid damned well to represent them.

No. The artists' lawyers do that. Do you really think the companies
are reacting this way because they care about the artists?

Al

 

[Guest]

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

play on wrote:

> 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.

I don't spend enough time looking for "files" to have an itnerest in it.
When I do want files they always seem to be on some company's website,
generally in the support or download areas. And that's it for my need
for "files".

--
ha

 

[Guest]

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

play on wrote:

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

That you have now ost track of who posted what does not speak well to
the cogency of your position.

--
ha

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 06:21:55 GMT, walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich)
wrote:

>play on wrote:
>
>> So Hank, is this from your own experience, or is it hearsay?
>
>That you have now ost track of who posted what does not speak well to
>the cogency of your position.

Hey, it was late...

 

[Guest]

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

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message news:1gsvcnd.16he42japxycfN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
> play on wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I don't spend enough time looking for "files" to have an itnerest in it.
> When I do want files they always seem to be on some company's website,
> generally in the support or download areas. And that's it for my need
> for "files".
>
> --
> ha


It's a convenient way of eluding the real point, isn't it.... calling them "files" ?
That term is so cold and totally removed from the reality of the issue, it
makes things easy to gloss over in one's mind.

If you actually had to enter your purpose and rationale to obtain said 'file'
it would be more than just a 'title' or author. I can see it now....

"I am looking for a copy of "A Kiss To Build A Dream On" sung by Louis
'Satchmo' Armstrong. The song was written by Oscar Hammerstein II,
Bert Kalmar and Harry Ruby, and is now published by ASCAP. It's not just
the song I want, but I want the *assurance* that the deceased performer's
family or other inheritors, the songwriters, and the publishing companies
or any agents of all of the above, will never see a penny of my money for
my having obtained in violation of Federal law, the time, talent, materials,
and artistic style of this song for which they initially provided the world
with the access to."

Sure pal.... comin' right up. Would you like fries with that?

DM

 

[Guest]

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

"play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1p5g21hcbeih3hld6jpqd44f75m99fe071@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 06:11:16 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
> <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message news:veqf21d7ummqrdjkm2evs71toscrpnk0e5@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 03:47:09 GMT, walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >play on <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> 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.
> >> >
> >> >So let's rip off the artists now to show them damn rekurd companies just
> >> >what we think of 'em!
> >>
> >> It's interesting that the companies seem to be complaining a lot more
> >> than the artists are.
> >>
> >> Al
> >
> >Ask any artist... the company is paid damned well to represent them.
>
> No. The artists' lawyers do that. Do you really think the companies
> are reacting this way because they care about the artists?
>
> Al

The artist's attorney generally does not handle promotion & distribution.

We're picking nits here.... I'll move on if you will.

 

[Guest]

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

Your rudeness doesn't alter the fact that you didn't even address the
point-- that the "industry" thought photocopiers and VCRs were a threat
to their viability.

Your comments highlight the fact that their paranoia was misplaced.

And my comments address the fact that if it were up to the industry, you
wouldn't even be allowed to buy a digital recorder, or a VCR.

And note that photocopiers have no crippling technologies implemented to
prevent them from copying copyrighted materials. Any small business
with a copier could easily "steal" copyrighted magazine articles and
even books, if they cared to go through the trouble. Now you can even
copy magazine articles and photographs in colour.



hank alrich wrote:
> 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?)

I have 4, but the youngest is an 18 pounder and too ebullient for the rest
of the oldies. He even lulls me into petting him and then he attacks.
Can't blame him, he's only 4 and the rest range from 10 to 16. So with
them, 3 birds (budgie and two cockatiels), an American Eskimo, and
Australian Cattle Dog and now a stupid red-earred slider, I've got way too
many animals (ok, so the turtle is a reptile) but I guess I couldn't bare to
get rid of any of them.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http/blogs.salon.com/0004478/

"Kurt Albershardt" <kurt@nv.net> wrote in message
news:38pbgfF5qdll9U1@individual.net...
> 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?)

In article <veqf21d7ummqrdjkm2evs71toscrpnk0e5@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:

> It's interesting that the companies seem to be complaining a lot more
> than the artists are.

Not surprising since they have the most amount of cash invested in the
product that they're not selling because people aren't buying. The
artists are only "virtually" losing money by not producing enough
income to offset the cost of their product.

It's the songwriters who are probably out the most because every song
that's acquired outside of the traditionally managed channels is a
point not recorded in their royalty accounting.

--
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

 

[Guest]

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

"Bill Van Dyk" <trash@christian-horizons.org> wrote in message
news:-eydnVf4EZEw-7XfRVn-qw@golden.net...
> Your rudeness doesn't alter the fact that you didn't even address the
> point-- that the "industry" thought photocopiers and VCRs were a threat to
> their viability.
>
> Your comments highlight the fact that their paranoia was misplaced.
>
> And my comments address the fact that if it were up to the industry, you
> wouldn't even be allowed to buy a digital recorder, or a VCR.
>
> And note that photocopiers have no crippling technologies implemented to
> prevent them from copying copyrighted materials. Any small business with
> a copier could easily "steal" copyrighted magazine articles and even
> books, if they cared to go through the trouble. Now you can even copy
> magazine articles and photographs in colour.


They are missing this point completely. This p2p technology, if done
properly, would mean mega bucks like the above example.


--

-Hev
remove your opinion to find me here:
www.michaelYOURspringerOPINION.com

 

[Guest]

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

Bill Van Dyk wrote:
> Geez, you just said it all. That's a pretty good rationale for
> unrestrained piracy.

Which is precisely why it is all protected by law. Most law
is simply recognition that self interest overrides ethics
for a very large part of the society they govern.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein