OT: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

[Rick]

Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

bb wrote:
> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
> news:OZmKzGoTIHA.4696@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> If you look at the transcript of the case here it might surprise you.
>> The RIAA is arguing that Jeffery Howell actually ripped his cds to
>> mp3s on his computer to share with his wife. Yes they are in a share
>> folder.
>
> ok, my last post on this topic. (maybe!)
>
> Caver1, I was confused when you said "Transcript of the case" - that's
> the Jammie Thomas case as the Howell case has not yet gone to court.
> What I think you meant was the Howell Plaintiff's Brief - there is a
> link to that here:
>
> http://www.tenreasonswhy.com/weblog/archives/2007/12/unbelievably_st_1.html
>
> The huge word here is "KaZaA," as in the KaZaA shared folder. It not
> really about the ripping CDs to MP3s, it's about the sharing to the
> world those songs. If Howell really put 2000+ songs on the net with
> KaZaA, I think he's toast.
exactly
Rick

 

[Rick]

Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

Anteaus wrote:
> "Gilgamesh" wrote:
>
>
>
> Makes me wonder if I could get away with selling software which was designed
> to stop working if the computer's locale was changed, such that I could
> demand a repayment of royalties from anyone who emigrated.
>
>
>

Do not let Microsoft see this

Rick

 

[caver1]

Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

Rick wrote:
> bb wrote:
>> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
>> news:OZmKzGoTIHA.4696@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> If you look at the transcript of the {Jammie?} case here it might
>>> surprise you.
>>
>> found 'em:
>>
>> Jury Instructions found here:
>> http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/10/jury-instructions-in-virgin-v-thomas.html
>>
>>
>> And the debate over it:
>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...ruction-as-capitol-v-thomas-wraps-up.html?rel
>>
>>
>> <quote>Judge Davis amended the instruction to say that the "act of
>> making available for electronic distribution... violates the copyright
>> owner's exclusive copyright."
>>
>> The current case is a extension of that instruction. The RIAA is
>> suing Jeffery Howell over making ripped MP3s available on a shared
>> drive. It's not clear whether that is over a home network or the
>> bigger internet or to who.
>>
>> If, as you say, it's over a home network and with his wife - the RIAA
>> really has driven over a cliff.
>>
>>
> How in the world do you think that RIAA could get access to a home net
> work? I am guessing that it must have been put on the web. The whole
> idea that copying CD's or TV programs for your own use is illegal is a
> very rocky road and not likely to be supported by the law.
>
> Rick


That is what they desire though. They won't go to
court on those desires at this time because they
know they won't win. But gradually erode these
points-DRM, DMCA, amongst other laws that have
passed in some states and countries- and
eventually the road will be smoothed out.
caver1

 

[caver1]

Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

Rick wrote:
> Anteaus wrote:
>> "Gilgamesh" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Makes me wonder if I could get away with selling software which was
>> designed to stop working if the computer's locale was changed, such
>> that I could demand a repayment of royalties from anyone who emigrated.
>>
>>
>
> Do not let Microsoft see this
>
> Rick



MS already has a patent that if they decide to
change the contract that you agreed to when you
purchased/installed the software they can
remotely, over the internet, shut your software down.
Overriding any settings you may have set.
Remember this is a patent only. Not in use as far
as they tell.
caver1

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

Re: UPDATE : RIAA Washington Post CD copy story was a LIE.....

Rick wrote:
> jim wrote> computers.
>>
>> Copying CDs to a computer or an iPod is common all over the world and if
>> Fisher's claims were correct, the RIAA would be painting millions of
>> people
>> as criminals. The story became national news and scores of publications
>> repeated Fisher's claims.
>>
> Take a deep breath and count to 10--then ask yourself how could this be
> enforced?
>
> Rick]

Remember the Sony rootkits?

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group -
Submit your nomination at the link below:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

View nominations already submitted:
http://htmlgear.tripod.com/guest/control.guest?u=protectfreedom&i=1&a=view

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

 

[Mark R. Cusumano]

"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:693FC7F3-38BB-47F6-8CA2-4CE9F7257EA8@microsoft.com...
>
>
> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
> news:zvCdnRk9AIsYQODanZ2dnUVZ8vydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>>> Canada used to but I think they stopped in the last year. Here in the US
>>> any blank music media or non computer burners, cassette decks, tape
>>> decks, etc , part of the sale price is a royalty paid to the recording
>>> industry.
>>
>> That is ridiculous...seeing how out of a stack of 50 cds I might use
>> *one* for actual music...and seeing how if I do, it's songs from Japanese
>> artist which have absolutely nothing to do with the RIAA.
>
> You have the wrong end of the stick.
> The royalties are added to non computer disks, its the same in the UK.
> This is why audio recorders were chipped to allow users to buy the cheap,
> royalty free, computer disks.
>
>>
>> I don't see how legally a royalty can be charged on something just for
>> the possibility that someone *might* use it for music.
>
> Its in the law so it legal.
> I don't see how you can keep saying laws are illegal.
>

Not to get too technical but a law can be illegal (in the US) if it violates
the constitution. Passing a law making it illegal to practice one's chosen
religion in the United States would be an illegal law. There are many on
the books, the problem is you can't challenge the legality of a law unless
you have "standing" meaning somehow the law effects you personally.

--
Mark R. Cusumano
Skype Name: mark.cusumano
Web: http://The-Padded-Cell.spaces.live.com

 

[Stephan Rose]

Re: OT: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your OwnComputer

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:13:30 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
> news:md2dnX9zXYXMqePaRVnyhQA@giganews.com...
>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:14:03 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
>>> news:zvCdnRk9AIsYQODanZ2dnUVZ8vydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>>> Canada used to but I think they stopped in the last year. Here in
>>>>> the US any blank music media or non computer burners, cassette
>>>>> decks, tape decks, etc , part of the sale price is a royalty paid to
>>>>> the recording industry.
>>>>
>>>> That is ridiculous...seeing how out of a stack of 50 cds I might use
>>>> *one* for actual music...and seeing how if I do, it's songs from
>>>> Japanese artist which have absolutely nothing to do with the RIAA.
>>>
>>> You have the wrong end of the stick.
>>> The royalties are added to non computer disks, its the same in the UK.
>>> This is why audio recorders were chipped to allow users to buy the
>>> cheap, royalty free, computer disks.
>>
>> "non-computer disks"?
>>
>> Ok, could you please explain what you mean by non computer disks?
>
> Recordables with the royalty paid on them and with the tag need to make
> them work in audio recorders.
> Un-chipped (un-hacked) audio recorders would only work with the tagged
> disks.
> Do you live a sheltered life or are you just a kid?

I don't live a sheltered life nor am I just a kid. When I need blank CD's
though, I just walk into a store and buy blanks...I wasn't aware such
different types exist as I have no need for an audio recorder.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®äº‹æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®äº‹å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[caver1]

Mark R. Cusumano wrote:
>
>
> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
> news:693FC7F3-38BB-47F6-8CA2-4CE9F7257EA8@microsoft.com...
>>
>>
>> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
>> news:zvCdnRk9AIsYQODanZ2dnUVZ8vydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>>>> Canada used to but I think they stopped in the last year. Here in
>>>> the US
>>>> any blank music media or non computer burners, cassette decks, tape
>>>> decks, etc , part of the sale price is a royalty paid to the recording
>>>> industry.
>>>
>>> That is ridiculous...seeing how out of a stack of 50 cds I might use
>>> *one* for actual music...and seeing how if I do, it's songs from
>>> Japanese
>>> artist which have absolutely nothing to do with the RIAA.
>>
>> You have the wrong end of the stick.
>> The royalties are added to non computer disks, its the same in the UK.
>> This is why audio recorders were chipped to allow users to buy the
>> cheap, royalty free, computer disks.
>>
>>>
>>> I don't see how legally a royalty can be charged on something just for
>>> the possibility that someone *might* use it for music.
>>
>> Its in the law so it legal.
>> I don't see how you can keep saying laws are illegal.
>>
>
> Not to get too technical but a law can be illegal (in the US) if it
> violates the constitution. Passing a law making it illegal to practice
> one's chosen religion in the United States would be an illegal law.
> There are many on the books, the problem is you can't challenge the
> legality of a law unless you have "standing" meaning somehow the law
> effects you personally.
>



True-But- Its not illegal. Maybe unconstitutional
when the supreme court rules that it is. It is
still a legal law until that time.
caver1

 

[DanS]

Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in
news:XtidnZwt0tdqPePaRVnytQA@giganews.com:

> I don't live a sheltered life nor am I just a kid. When I need blank
> CD's though, I just walk into a store and buy blanks...I wasn't aware
> such different types exist as I have no need for an audio recorder.

Those would be blank CD's labelled as 'For Music', not all blank CD's.

 

[Stephan Rose]

Re: OT: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your OwnComputer

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:13:43 -0800, DanS wrote:

> Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in
> news:XtidnZwt0tdqPePaRVnytQA@giganews.com:
>
>> I don't live a sheltered life nor am I just a kid. When I need blank
>> CD's though, I just walk into a store and buy blanks...I wasn't aware
>> such different types exist as I have no need for an audio recorder.
>
> Those would be blank CD's labelled as 'For Music', not all blank CD's.

Ahh, I think I've seen that before but always just dismissed it as a
marketing gimmick.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®äº‹æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®äº‹å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[XS11E]

Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:13:43 -0800, DanS wrote:
>
>> Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in
>> news:XtidnZwt0tdqPePaRVnytQA@giganews.com:
>>
>>> I don't live a sheltered life nor am I just a kid. When I need
>>> blank CD's though, I just walk into a store and buy blanks...I
>>> wasn't aware such different types exist as I have no need for an
>>> audio recorder.
>>
>> Those would be blank CD's labelled as 'For Music', not all blank
>> CD's.
>
> Ahh, I think I've seen that before but always just dismissed it as
> a marketing gimmick.

It might very well be, I recall reading somewhere that "music" cds were
exactly the same as the other blank cds. I can't recall where I saw
that and don't care enough to google it but someone might want to?


--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org

 

[Travis Crow]

XS11E wrote:
> Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:13:43 -0800, DanS wrote:
>>
>>> Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in
>>> news:XtidnZwt0tdqPePaRVnytQA@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> I don't live a sheltered life nor am I just a kid. When I need
>>>> blank CD's though, I just walk into a store and buy blanks...I
>>>> wasn't aware such different types exist as I have no need for an
>>>> audio recorder.
>>> Those would be blank CD's labelled as 'For Music', not all blank
>>> CD's.
>> Ahh, I think I've seen that before but always just dismissed it as
>> a marketing gimmick.
>
> It might very well be, I recall reading somewhere that "music" cds were
> exactly the same as the other blank cds. I can't recall where I saw
> that and don't care enough to google it but someone might want to?

The music ones are different, they require this:
http://caveviews.blogs.com/cave_news/2004/12/dvd_and_cd_rewi.html

 

[Stephan Rose]

Re: OT: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your OwnComputer

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:41:59 -0700, XS11E wrote:

> Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:13:43 -0800, DanS wrote:
>>
>>> Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in
>>> news:XtidnZwt0tdqPePaRVnytQA@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> I don't live a sheltered life nor am I just a kid. When I need blank
>>>> CD's though, I just walk into a store and buy blanks...I wasn't aware
>>>> such different types exist as I have no need for an audio recorder.
>>>
>>> Those would be blank CD's labelled as 'For Music', not all blank CD's.
>>
>> Ahh, I think I've seen that before but always just dismissed it as a
>> marketing gimmick.
>
> It might very well be, I recall reading somewhere that "music" cds were
> exactly the same as the other blank cds. I can't recall where I saw
> that and don't care enough to google it but someone might want to?

Well in regards to those audio-recorders not accepting regular blank
disks, that is possible. Each CD does have a special track with
information about it, which I suppose could contain additional
information in regards to those CDs that audio recorders are supposed to
use. Normal players don't care about that track but CD Burners do.

But beyond that...the actual data in itself, there is absolutely zero
difference or else the CD couldn't work in a regular player.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®äº‹æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®äº‹å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Stephan Rose]

Re: OT: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your OwnComputer

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 23:29:26 +0000, Travis Crow wrote:

> XS11E wrote:
>> Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:13:43 -0800, DanS wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in
>>>> news:XtidnZwt0tdqPePaRVnytQA@giganews.com:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't live a sheltered life nor am I just a kid. When I need blank
>>>>> CD's though, I just walk into a store and buy blanks...I wasn't
>>>>> aware such different types exist as I have no need for an audio
>>>>> recorder.
>>>> Those would be blank CD's labelled as 'For Music', not all blank
>>>> CD's.
>>> Ahh, I think I've seen that before but always just dismissed it as a
>>> marketing gimmick.
>>
>> It might very well be, I recall reading somewhere that "music" cds were
>> exactly the same as the other blank cds. I can't recall where I saw
>> that and don't care enough to google it but someone might want to?
>
> The music ones are different, they require this:
> http://caveviews.blogs.com/cave_news/2004/12/dvd_and_cd_rewi.html

Oh man I gotta get me one of those! I've been rewinding my CD's by
hand...what a pain! That would make my life soooo much easier!


--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®äº‹æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®äº‹å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[... et al.]

Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

Rick wrote:

> bb wrote:
>
>> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you look at the transcript of the {Jammie?} case here it might
>>> surprise you.
>>
>> found 'em:
>>
>> Jury Instructions found here:
>> http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/10/jury-instructions-in-virgin-v-thomas.html
>>
>>
>> And the debate over it:
>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...ruction-as-capitol-v-thomas-wraps-up.html?rel
>>
>>
>> <quote>Judge Davis amended the instruction to say that the "act of
>> making available for electronic distribution... violates the copyright
>> owner's exclusive copyright."
>>
>> The current case is a extension of that instruction. The RIAA is
>> suing Jeffery Howell over making ripped MP3s available on a shared
>> drive. It's not clear whether that is over a home network or the
>> bigger internet or to who.
>>
>> If, as you say, it's over a home network and with his wife - the RIAA
>> really has driven over a cliff.
>>
>>
> How in the world do you think that RIAA could get access to a home net
> work?

No problem.
One of the founding members of RIAA is the Sony Megacorp.
You know, the entity that had one of their black-ops divisions
create a malware that they then, free of charge, included on
select CDs that with the help of Microsofts Autorun/Autoplay
technology infects your Windows OS as soon as the CD is inserted.
( I saw it mentioned in another part of this thread, but thought
it needed to be mentioned here as well. )


> I am guessing that it must have been put on the web. The whole
> idea that copying CD's or TV programs for your own use is illegal is a
> very rocky road and not likely to be supported by the law.


--
Nah-ah. I'm staying out of this. ... Now, here's my opinion.

Please followup in the newsgroup.
E-mail address is invalid due to spam-control.

 

[HeyBub]

caver1 wrote:
>> You bought the medium, you did not but unfettered rights to the
>> intellectual, creative, contents of the media. Ownership of the song
>> or program or whatever's ON the media reside elsewhere. You may
>> legally access this content only under the terms of a contract
>> willingly entered between you and the creator (or his agent).
>>
>>
>
>
> There is no contract when you buy music or a
> movie. There is only law covering what you can and
> cannot do. The Media industry wants to take away
> the fair use rights the law has given.
> There are contracts with software but even those
> cannot take away certain rights that the law has
> granted.

You really need to review the definition of "contract." I'll get you
started:

Contract = a binding exchange of promises that the law will enforce. Each
contract must have a meeting of the minds and a consideration on the part of
all parties involved. Some contracts must be written (sale of real property,
duration of more than a year, etc. see Statute of Frauds), but the vast
majority do not. There are usually three elements to a contract: Offer and
acceptance, consideration, and intent to have the contract bound by legal
constraints.

When you "buy" software, the authors are OFFERING a product under terms and
condition, you ACCEPT the offer by paying a CONSIDERATION, and the whole
transaction is covered by (usually) the Uniform Commercial Code.

The law may prohibit certain kinds of contract, and that's what you think
"fair use" does. It doesn't.

"Fair use" copying is available for:

1. Criticism,
2. Comment,
3. News reporting,
4. Teaching, or
5. Scholarship.

That's it. Even then, each of these exceptions is constrained by nature and
extent of the copying, commercial impact, and other considerations.

There is no "fair use" copying of music CDs, software distributions, or
other things we talk about here. Those events are covered under different
laws (i.e., Audio Home Recording Act).

 

[Mark R. Cusumano]

"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
news:eNpcV1xTIHA.5400@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Mark R. Cusumano wrote:
>>
>>
>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
>> news:693FC7F3-38BB-47F6-8CA2-4CE9F7257EA8@microsoft.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
>>> news:zvCdnRk9AIsYQODanZ2dnUVZ8vydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>>> Canada used to but I think they stopped in the last year. Here in the
>>>>> US
>>>>> any blank music media or non computer burners, cassette decks, tape
>>>>> decks, etc , part of the sale price is a royalty paid to the recording
>>>>> industry.
>>>>
>>>> That is ridiculous...seeing how out of a stack of 50 cds I might use
>>>> *one* for actual music...and seeing how if I do, it's songs from
>>>> Japanese
>>>> artist which have absolutely nothing to do with the RIAA.
>>>
>>> You have the wrong end of the stick.
>>> The royalties are added to non computer disks, its the same in the UK.
>>> This is why audio recorders were chipped to allow users to buy the
>>> cheap, royalty free, computer disks.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't see how legally a royalty can be charged on something just for
>>>> the possibility that someone *might* use it for music.
>>>
>>> Its in the law so it legal.
>>> I don't see how you can keep saying laws are illegal.
>>>
>>
>> Not to get too technical but a law can be illegal (in the US) if it
>> violates the constitution. Passing a law making it illegal to practice
>> one's chosen religion in the United States would be an illegal law.
>> There are many on the books, the problem is you can't challenge the
>> legality of a law unless you have "standing" meaning somehow the law
>> effects you personally.
>>
>
>
>
> True-But- Its not illegal. Maybe unconstitutional when the supreme court
> rules that it is. It is still a legal law until that time.
> caver1

Point taken, you are of course right.

--
Mark R. Cusumano
Skype Name: mark.cusumano
Web: http://The-Padded-Cell.spaces.live.com

 

[Daave]

HeyBub wrote:
> There is no "fair use" copying of music CDs, software distributions,
> or other things we talk about here.

Although there may be no fair use exemption for software distributions,
there is one for the copying of music CDs (for personal, noncommercial
use). See Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, 17 U.S.C. § 1008.

Also see "RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA v. DIAMOND
MULTIMEDIA SYS., 180 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999)":

http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/180_F3d_1072.htm

 

[Thufir]

Re: OT: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your OwnComputer

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:31:11 -0600, HeyBub wrote:

> here is no "fair use" copying of music CDs, software distributions, or
> other things we talk about here. Those events are covered under
> different laws (i.e., Audio Home Recording Act).

In fact, the Rio's operation is entirely consistent with the Act's main
purpose — the facilitation of personal use. As the Senate Report
explains, "[t]he purpose of [the Act] is to ensure the right of consumers
to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their
private, noncommercial use." S. Rep. 102-294, at *86 (emphasis added).
The Act does so through its home taping exemption, see 17 U.S.C. S 1008,
which "protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and
analog musical recordings, " H.R. Rep. 102-873(I), at *59. The Rio merely
makes copies in order to render portable, or "space-shift", those files
that already reside on a user's hard drive. Cf. Sony Corp. of America v.
Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 455 (1984) (holding that "time-
shifting" of copyrighted television shows with VCR's constitutes fair use
under the Copyright Act, and thus is not an infringement). Such copying
is paradigmatic non-commercial personal use entirely consistent with the
purposes of the Act.[20]


rhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act#Exceptions



Seems that so long as it's non-commercial that you can do what you like.



-Thufir

 

[dennis@home]

"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:XtidnZot0te9WePaRVnytQA@giganews.com...
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 23:29:26 +0000, Travis Crow wrote:
>
>> XS11E wrote:
>>> Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:13:43 -0800, DanS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:XtidnZwt0tdqPePaRVnytQA@giganews.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't live a sheltered life nor am I just a kid. When I need blank
>>>>>> CD's though, I just walk into a store and buy blanks...I wasn't
>>>>>> aware such different types exist as I have no need for an audio
>>>>>> recorder.
>>>>> Those would be blank CD's labelled as 'For Music', not all blank
>>>>> CD's.
>>>> Ahh, I think I've seen that before but always just dismissed it as a
>>>> marketing gimmick.
>>>
>>> It might very well be, I recall reading somewhere that "music" cds were
>>> exactly the same as the other blank cds. I can't recall where I saw
>>> that and don't care enough to google it but someone might want to?
>>
>> The music ones are different, they require this:
>> http://caveviews.blogs.com/cave_news/2004/12/dvd_and_cd_rewi.html
>
> Oh man I gotta get me one of those! I've been rewinding my CD's by
> hand...what a pain! That would make my life soooo much easier!

So you are just a kid then.. anyone who had been around would know you can
just put the CDs in upside down to rewind them. -)