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

[forty-nine]

caver1 wrote:
> forty-nine wrote:
>>
>> "XS11E" <xs11e@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9A1CA133DCF79xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1...
>>> "forty-nine" <110001@49.xyz> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's a poor example.
>>>
>>> It's one example. Did you Google "RIAA suits"
>>>
>>>
>> No.
>>
>> I bet though it is more of the same.
>>
>> The people whining about this stuff think the whole world, and
>> everything in it, should be Free...and Open Source.
>> Why, if its on the Net...then its "public domain"...right ?
>> I bought the CD...I should be able to give the music away to 10,000
>> people if I want ...right ?
>>
>> Show me a link to somebody "sued" for simply ripping CD's to a PC.
>> Not a link where that is the defendants response.
>>
>> But a link where the "suit" alledges just that...no file sharing involved
>
>
>
> Do your own research where RIAA reps say one copy is stealing.
> No i don't agree with piracy or theft. But you cannot stop these by
> also stopping legal usage.
> Even some of the Founding Fathers of the USA were pirates. Importing not
> fighting.
> caver1

Do my own research...lol
You are the one insisting on googling this BS.
Can't find a link where the suit involves ripping a CD?
Of course not !
Its about P2P music sharing...not ripping privately owned CD's.
It's a lot of BS being spread by "thieves" whom hope to drum up public
support by scaring people into thinking RIAA is after them too.

 

[XS11E]

forty-nine <110001@49.xyz> wrote:

> caver1 wrote:
>> Do your own research where RIAA reps say one copy is stealing.
>> No i don't agree with piracy or theft. But you cannot stop these
>> by also stopping legal usage.
>> Even some of the Founding Fathers of the USA were pirates.
>> Importing not fighting. caver1
>
> Do my own research...lol
> You are the one insisting on googling this BS.

And you're the one who doesn't even know to whom you are replying.

> Can't find a link where the suit involves ripping a CD?

Did you look? I thought you were trying to learn something, sorry, I
was mistaken.


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

 

[forty-nine]

XS11E wrote:
> forty-nine <110001@49.xyz> wrote:
>
>> caver1 wrote:
>>> Do your own research where RIAA reps say one copy is stealing.
>>> No i don't agree with piracy or theft. But you cannot stop these
>>> by also stopping legal usage.
>>> Even some of the Founding Fathers of the USA were pirates.
>>> Importing not fighting. caver1
>> Do my own research...lol
>> You are the one insisting on googling this BS.
>
> And you're the one who doesn't even know to whom you are replying.
>
>> Can't find a link where the suit involves ripping a CD?
>
> Did you look? I thought you were trying to learn something, sorry, I
> was mistaken.
>
>

Whiners all sound alike...its hard to pick 'em out of a crowd...lol

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

HeyBub wrote:
> 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.

Speaking of software licenses, this point right here is the first
problem. If the license is unconscionable, it is unenforceable.

> Each
> contract must have a meeting of the minds and a consideration on the part of
> all parties involved.

Post shrink wrap licenses rarely have this.

> 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).
>
>

So really there is 'fair use' copying of music CDs, but it's just
covered under a different law.

--
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

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

Daave wrote:
> 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,

But there is for software distributions:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement
for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the
making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step
in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine
and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and
that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued
possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.


> 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
>
>


--
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

 

[caver1]

HeyBub wrote:
> 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.



The courts first have to decide if there is a
legal binding contract. Then they have to decide
if it was broken and if so by which party. Then if
the parties haven't settled out of court decide
what the remedy is.
There is no contract that the RIAA can take you to
court for breaking because there is non.
Back to the car analogies. You buy a car you
break the law by speeding. yes you can be taken to
court and fined but there was contract with the
state or anyone when you bought the car.
Under law you still must use it properly as set
out in law.
There are laws that have granted certain rights to
the user under fair use. There are others that
also set limits such as copyright infringement.
But these laws do not make for a contract between
you and the RIAA or Sony,UMI, etc.
caver1

 

[XS11E]

forty-nine <110001@49.xyz> wrote:

> XS11E wrote:
>> forty-nine <110001@49.xyz> wrote:
>>
>>> caver1 wrote:
>>>> Do your own research where RIAA reps say one copy is stealing.
>>>> No i don't agree with piracy or theft. But you cannot stop
>>>> these by also stopping legal usage.
>>>> Even some of the Founding Fathers of the USA were pirates.
>>>> Importing not fighting. caver1
>>> Do my own research...lol
>>> You are the one insisting on googling this BS.
>>
>> And you're the one who doesn't even know to whom you are
>> replying.
>>
>>> Can't find a link where the suit involves ripping a CD?
>>
>> Did you look? I thought you were trying to learn something,
>> sorry, I was mistaken.
>>
>>
>
> Whiners all sound alike...its hard to pick 'em out of a
> crowd...lol

Morons all sound alike... it's hard to pick 'em out of a crowd but in
your case, it's easy.

I'm very you haven't the ability to comprehend what's being told you or
the intellect to comprehend WHO is telling it to you.

Bye.




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

 

[Daave]

The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
wrote:
> Daave wrote:
>> 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,
>
> But there is for software distributions:
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html

Yes, I know. When I said "may," I was acknowledging that there "is."

I guess I should have just said "is."

(Then again that would all depend on what the definition of "is" is...)

 

[caver1]

Daave wrote:
> The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
> wrote:
>> Daave wrote:
>>> 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,
>> But there is for software distributions:
>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
>
> Yes, I know. When I said "may," I was acknowledging that there "is."
>
> I guess I should have just said "is."
>
> (Then again that would all depend on what the definition of "is" is...)
>
>

This is in Title 17 chapter 10 subchapter d of the
Copyright Law of the United States of America
and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the
United States Code

§ 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions

No action may be brought under this title alleging
infringement of copyright based on the
manufacture, importation, or distribution of a
digital audio recording device, a digital audio
recording medium, an analog recording device, or
an analog recording medium, or based on the
noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device
or medium for making digital musical recordings or
analog musical recordings.

If you cannot have action brought against you
under this code for non commercial use for making
those recordings Then yes there is fair use coping
of cds.
caver1

 

[Daave]

caver1 wrote:
> Daave wrote:
>> The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina
>> DiBoy' wrote:
>>> Daave wrote:
>>>> 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,
>>> But there is for software distributions:
>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
>>
>> Yes, I know. When I said "may," I was acknowledging that there "is."
>>
>> I guess I should have just said "is."
>>
>> (Then again that would all depend on what the definition of "is"
>> is...)
>>
>>
>
> This is in Title 17 chapter 10 subchapter d of the
> Copyright Law of the United States of America
> and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the
> United States Code
>
> § 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
>
> No action may be brought under this title alleging
> infringement of copyright based on the
> manufacture, importation, or distribution of a
> digital audio recording device, a digital audio
> recording medium, an analog recording device, or
> an analog recording medium, or based on the
> noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device
> or medium for making digital musical recordings or
> analog musical recordings.
>
> If you cannot have action brought against you
> under this code for non commercial use for making
> those recordings Then yes there is fair use coping
> of cds.
> caver1

Yes, the fair use exemption for the copying of *music* CDs has been
established. My original quote:

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

 

[caver1]

Daave wrote:
> caver1 wrote:
>> Daave wrote:
>>> The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina
>>> DiBoy' wrote:
>>>> Daave wrote:
>>>>> 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,
>>>> But there is for software distributions:
>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
>>> Yes, I know. When I said "may," I was acknowledging that there "is."
>>>
>>> I guess I should have just said "is."
>>>
>>> (Then again that would all depend on what the definition of "is"
>>> is...)
>>>
>>>
>> This is in Title 17 chapter 10 subchapter d of the
>> Copyright Law of the United States of America
>> and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the
>> United States Code
>>
>> § 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
>>
>> No action may be brought under this title alleging
>> infringement of copyright based on the
>> manufacture, importation, or distribution of a
>> digital audio recording device, a digital audio
>> recording medium, an analog recording device, or
>> an analog recording medium, or based on the
>> noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device
>> or medium for making digital musical recordings or
>> analog musical recordings.
>>
>> If you cannot have action brought against you
>> under this code for non commercial use for making
>> those recordings Then yes there is fair use coping
>> of cds.
>> caver1
>
> Yes, the fair use exemption for the copying of *music* CDs has been
> established. My original quote:
>
> 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
>
>



I should have sniped. my reference to the
copyright laws was in answer to Heybub who thinks
that if he doesn't do any research he can hide his
head in the sand and say he is right.
caver1

 

[forty-nine]

"XS11E" <xs11e@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A1D590314F20xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1...
> forty-nine <110001@49.xyz> wrote:
>
>> XS11E wrote:
>>> forty-nine <110001@49.xyz> wrote:
>>>
>>>> caver1 wrote:
>>>>> Do your own research where RIAA reps say one copy is stealing.
>>>>> No i don't agree with piracy or theft. But you cannot stop
>>>>> these by also stopping legal usage.
>>>>> Even some of the Founding Fathers of the USA were pirates.
>>>>> Importing not fighting. caver1
>>>> Do my own research...lol
>>>> You are the one insisting on googling this BS.
>>>
>>> And you're the one who doesn't even know to whom you are
>>> replying.
>>>
>>>> Can't find a link where the suit involves ripping a CD?
>>>
>>> Did you look? I thought you were trying to learn something,
>>> sorry, I was mistaken.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Whiners all sound alike...its hard to pick 'em out of a
>> crowd...lol
>
> Morons all sound alike... it's hard to pick 'em out of a crowd but in
> your case, it's easy.
>
> I'm very you haven't the ability to comprehend what's being told you or
> the intellect to comprehend WHO is telling it to you.
>
> Bye.
>

Problem is...I do comprehend.
I don't need to read some nerds opinion of fair use, right to use ,
constitutional rights, Bill of Rights, or whatever made up right to theft
that people seem to believe they have been born into.
All the links in this thread point to users of P2P programs with illegal
distribution of copyrighted material.
They are thieves...plain and simple.
They know what they are doing...and in the one case, deleted evidence from
log files.
If that individual believed he was within his rights of "fair use", he was
quick to try to cover his tracks.
But...I suppose being on a usenet group...most people here support file
sharing, as long as they don't get caught.
I have a strong moral backgroud with convictions that don't change because
some NG dweeb calls me a moron.

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

Daave wrote:
> The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
> wrote:
>> Daave wrote:
>>> 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,
>> But there is for software distributions:
>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
>
> Yes, I know. When I said "may," I was acknowledging that there "is."
>
> I guess I should have just said "is."
>
> (Then again that would all depend on what the definition of "is" is...)
>
>

It's all good!


--
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

 

[Plato]

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

Gilgamesh wrote:
>
> I thought US copy right law had something called "Fair Use" that let you
> make backup copies of legitimatly purchased media. (Unfortunately that is
> not part of Australian copyright law :-( )

Which doesn't mean one cant put copy protection on any CD.


--
http://www.bootdisk.com/

 

[Red Henk]

by appearances! How ludicrous is reason, blown with a
breath in every direction!

I should have to enumerate almost every action of men who scarce waver save
under her assaults. For reason has been obliged to yield, and the wisest
reason takes as her own principles those which the imagination of man has
everywhere rashly introduced. He who would follow reason only would be
deemed foolish by the generality of men. We must judge by the opinion of the
majority of mankind. Because it has pleased them, we must work all day for
pleasures seen to be imaginary and, after sleep has refreshed our tired
reason, we must forthwith start up and rush after phantoms, and suffer the
impressions of this mistress of the world. This is one of the sources of
error, but it is not the only one.

Our magistrates have known well this mystery. Their red robes, the ermine in
which they wrap themselves like furry cats, the courts in which they
administer justice, the fleurs-de-lis, and all such august apparel were
necessary if the physicians had not their cassocks and their mules, if the
doctors had not their square caps and their robes four times too wide, they
would never have duped the world, which cannot resist so original an
appearance. If magistrates had true justice, and if physicians had the true
art of healing, they would have no occasion for square caps the majesty of
these sciences would of itself be venerabl

 

[Stephan Rose]

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

innocence consisted in using and having
dominion over the creatures, but now in separating himself from them and
subjecting himself to them.

487. Every religion is false which, as to its faith, does not worship one
God as the origin of everything and which, as to its morality, does not love
one only God as the object of everything.

488.... But it is impossible that God should ever be the end, if He is not
the beginning. We lift our eyes on high, but lean upon the sand and the
earth will dissolve, and we shall fall whilst looking at the heavens.

489. If there is one sole source of everything, there is one sole end of
everything everything through Him, everything for Him. The true religion,
then, must teach us to worship Him only, and to love Him only. But as we
find ourselves unable to worship what we know not, and to love any other
object but ourselves, the religion which instructs us in these duties must
instruct us also of this inability, and teach us also the remedies for it.
It teaches us that by one man all was lost, and the bond broken between God
and us, and that by one man the bond is renewed.

We are born so averse to this love of God, and it is so necessary, that we
must be born guilty, or God would be unjust.

490. Men, not being accustomed to form merit, but only to recompense it
where they find it formed, judge of God by themselves.

491. The true religion must have as a characteristic the obligation to love
God. This is very just, and yet no oth

 

[jim]

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

certitude for,
after having established that all their ways are sure, they have no longer
called that sure which leads to heaven without danger of not arriving there
by it, but that which leads there without danger of going out of that road.

921.... The saints indulge in subtleties in order to think themselves
criminals and impeach their better actions. And these indulge in subtleties
in order to excuse the most wicked.

The heathen sages erected a structure equally fine outside, but upon a bad
foundation and the devil deceived men by this apparent resemblance based
upon the most different foundation.

Man never had so good a cause as I and others have never furnished so good
a capture as you...

The more they point out weakness in my person, the more they authorise my
cause.

You say that I am a heretic. Is that lawful? And if you do not fear that men
do justice, do you not fear that God does justice?

You will feel the force of the truth, and you will yield to it...

There is something supernatural in such a blindness. Digna necessitas.231
Mentiris impudentissime.232

Doctrina sua noscetur vir...[233]

False piety, a double sin.

I am alone against

 

[Darth Chaos]

to excuse them, intersperse
praises and evidence of love and esteem. Despite all this, the medicine does
not cease to be bitter to self-love. It takes as little as it can, always
with disgust, and often with a secret spite against those who administer it.

Hence it happens that, if any have some interest in being loved by us, they
are averse to render us a service which they know to be disagreeable. They
treat us as we wish to be treated. We hate the truth, and they hide it from
us. We desire flattery, and they flatter us. We like to be deceived, and
they deceive us.

So each degree of good fortune which raises us in the world removes us
farther from truth, because we are most afraid of wounding those whose
affection is most useful and whose dislike is most dangerous. A prince may
be the byword of all Europe, and he alone will know nothing of it. I am not
astonished. To tell the truth is useful to those to whom it is spoken, but
disadvantageous to those who tell it, because it makes them disliked. Now
those who live with princes love their own interests more than that of the
prince whom they serve and so they take care not to confer on him a benefit
so as to injure themselves.

This evil is no doubt greater and more common among the higher classes but
the lower are not exempt from it, since there is always some advantage in
making men love us. Human life is thus only a perpetual illusion men
deceive and flatter each other. No one speaks of us in our presence as he
does of us in our absence. Human society is founded on mutual deceit few
friendships would endure if each knew what his friend said of him in his
absence, although he then spoke in sincerity and without passion.

Man is, then, only disguise, falsehood, and hypocrisy, both in himself and
in

 

[Thufir]

and are borne towards the Infinite. Who
will follow these marvellous processes? The Author of these wonders
understands them. None other can do so.

Through failure to contemplate these Infinites, men have rashly rushed into
the examination of nature, as though they bore some proportion to her. It is
strange that they have wished to understand the beginnings of things, and
thence to arrive at the knowledge of the whole, with a presumption as
infinite as their object. For surely this design cannot be formed without
presumption or without a capacity infinite like nature.

If we are well informed, we understand that, as nature has graven her image
and that of her Author on all things, they almost all partake of her double
infinity. Thus we see that all the sciences are infinite in the extent of
their researches. For who doubts that geometry, for instance, has an
infinite infinity of problems to solve? They are also infinite in the
multitude and fineness of their premises for it is clear that those which
are put forward as ultimate are not self-supporting, but are based on others
which, again having others for their support, do not permit of finality. But
we represent some as ultimate for reason, in the same way as in regard to
material objects we call that an indivisible point beyond which our senses
can no longer perceive anything, although by its nature it is infinitely
divisible.

Of these two Infinites of science, that of greatness is the most palpable,
and hence a few persons have pretended to know all things. "I will speak of
the whole," said Democritus.

But the infinitely little is the leas

 

[Mark Kent]

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

MAN WITHOUT GOD
o SECTION III: OF THE NECESSITY OF THE WAGER
o SECTION IV: OF THE MEANS OF BELIEF
o SECTION V: JUSTICE AND THE REASON OF EFFECTS
o SECTION VI: THE PHILOSOPHERS
o SECTION VII: MORALITY AND DOCTRINE
o SECTION VIII: THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION
o SECTION IX: PERPETUITY
o SECTION X: TYPOLOGY
o SECTION XI: THE PROPHECIES
o SECTION XII: PROOFS OF JESUS CHRIST
o SECTION XIII: THE MIRACLES
o SECTION XIV: APPENDIX: POLEMICAL FRAGMENTS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

PENSÉES

by Blaise Pascal

1660

translated by W. F. Trotter

PENSÉES

SECTION I: THOUGHTS ON MIND AND ON STYLE

1. The difference between the mathematical and the intuitive mind.--In the
one, the principles are palpable, but removed from ordinary use so that for
want of habit it is difficult to turn one's mind in that direction: but if
one turns it thither ever so little, one sees the principles fully, and one
must have a quite inaccurate mind who reasons wrongly from principles so
plain that it is almost impossible they should escape notice.

But in the intuitive mind the principles are