Darth Chaos wrote:

>

> I don't care if he's MI5, CIA, Mossad, ISI, the Emperor's Hand, or

> some reptilian humanoid from the planrt Zartan (just kidding about

> reptilian himanoids). I own my CDs and DVDs. I bought them with my

> hard earned money, and dammit, I'm gonna protect my investments by

> making back-up copies for my own personal use. As long as there is

> still a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, ain't no corporate neo-

> fascist gonna tell me otherwise.

 

You can't make copies in jail. Or bankrupt.

 

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).

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.

 

 

 

I agree that I used the wrong point to insert

transcript. I was thinking of all legal papers

filed as part of the case. Once the trial is over

then the briefs are part of the transcript.

Yes Howell is toast. But as I said earlier look at

the whole argument of the RIAA and see where they

are heading.

Plus it has already gone to trail. Aug.24. 2007

RIAA was rewarded Summary judgment against Howell

in Arizona Federal court.

caver1

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

 

Anteaus wrote:

> "Gilgamesh" wrote:

>

>

>> That's correct. That allows us to buy DVDs from any region in the world and

>> play them in our local units.

>

> ...although in areas with region-coding, particularly those with a region

> other than one, it creates a situation where the consumer is actually

> better-off downloading a pirate DivX/XViD copy than buying a genuine DVD one.

> Perhaps the Fat Cats have yet to realise that to some extent they are

> creating the piracy problem by way of their own malpractices.

>

> 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.

>

>

>

 

 

The "Fat Cats" ,as you call them, are litigating a

loosing battle over an industry that will die

unless it changes its business model. But they

would rather fight than change.

caver1

HeyBub wrote:

> Darth Chaos wrote:

>> I don't care if he's MI5, CIA, Mossad, ISI, the Emperor's Hand, or

>> some reptilian humanoid from the planrt Zartan (just kidding about

>> reptilian himanoids). I own my CDs and DVDs. I bought them with my

>> hard earned money, and dammit, I'm gonna protect my investments by

>> making back-up copies for my own personal use. As long as there is

>> still a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, ain't no corporate neo-

>> fascist gonna tell me otherwise.

>

> You can't make copies in jail. Or bankrupt.

>

> 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.

caver1

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

 

(from http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9839897-7.html?tag=nefd.top )

 

January 3, 2008 9:26 PM PST

RIAA shreds Washington Post story in debate

Posted by Greg Sandoval

 

An executive with the music industry's lobbying group engaged in a verbal

sparring match on Thursday with the Washington Post columnist who alleges

that the organization is trying to outlaw the practice of copying CDs to a

computer.

 

Here was a golden opportunity for Cary Sherman to declare once and for all

that copying CDs for personal use is lawful. He stopped short of that,

saying that copyright law is too complex to make such sweeping statements.

National Public Radio hosted in on-air debate between Marc Fisher, the Post

columnist, and Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association

of America (RIAA). The way I saw it, Fisher was ill advised to debate. What

was exposed was a reporter who doesn't want to admit to making a mistake and

has dug his heels in. Meanwhile, according to Sherman, Fisher has misled

consumers.

 

Early in the debate, Fisher was on the defense as Sherman picked apart his

story, which appeared on Sunday. In the piece Fisher quoted from a court

document, filed in the case of an Arizona man accused by the RIAA of illegal

file sharing. Fisher wrote that the quotes demonstrated that the lobbying

group was now challenging the right of music fans to rip CDs to their

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.

 

But as numerous bloggers and copyright experts have noted, the quotes cited

by Fisher are incomplete. Fisher wrote that the RIAA had argued in the brief

that MP3 files created from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" and

violate the law.

 

"The Post picked up one sentence in a 21-page brief and then picked the part

of the sentence about ripping CDs onto the computer," Sherman said during

the radio show. "(The Post) simply ignored the part of the sentence about

putting them into a shared folder."

 

The "shared folder" omission is at the center of what's wrong with Fisher's

story. Anyone who reads the brief can see that the RIAA says over and over

again what it considers to be illegal activity: the distribution of music

files via peer-to-peer networks.

 

Fisher didn't address this issue during the debate. Instead he moved on to

testimony given by Jennifer Pariser, a Sony BMG lawyer, who said during an

earlier court case: "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself,

I suppose we can say he stole a song."

 

This is when Sherman really went to work on Fisher's story.

 

"The Sony person who (Fisher) relies on actually misspoke in that trial,"

Sherman said. "I know because I asked her after stories started appearing.

It turns out that she had misheard the question. She thought that this was a

question about illegal downloading when it was actually a question about

ripping CDs. That is not the position of Sony BMG. That is not the position

of that spokesperson. That is not the position of the industry."

 

Sherman said that other reporters and bloggers had called about Pariser's

quotes and chose not to write about them after learning she had erred.

 

Why wasn't Fisher offered this information? Well, he would have been had he

spoken to anyone at the RIAA, Sherman said.

 

Prior to writing the story Fisher called the RIAA for a statement once and

left a message, according to Sherman. When the RIAA's spokesman returned the

call two hours later, he missed Fisher. But Fisher never called back to get

the RIAA's statement even though the story wasn't published until nine days

later.

 

It's customary for journalists to give the subject of a story a chance to be

quoted--especially when they're slamming them.

 

Again, Fisher declined to address Sherman's accusations. He moved on to

statements that appear on the RIAA's Web site, which he claims show that the

group considers copying music to a computer as unlawful.

 

But Sherman suggested that Fisher was once again being selective with the

RIAA's statements. Sherman showed the location on the site where the RIAA

says that people can typically copy music for personal use without any

problems.

 

"They go on to equivocate and say, 'Well, usually it won't raise concerns if

you go ahead and transfer legally obtained music to your computer,'" Fisher

said during the debate, "but they won't go all the way and say that it's a

legal right."

 

"Not a single (legal) case has ever been brought (by the RIAA against

someone for copying music for personal use)," Sherman said. "Not a single

claim has ever been made."

 

In the final analysis, this is really a story about journalism ethics more

than it is about technology. Fisher is a respected journalist who probably

should remember one of the first things they teach cub reporters: when

someone challenges you over a story, it's smart to think of worst-case

scenarios.

 

Reporters are reminded to ask themselves whether they could defend

everything they did during the reporting and writing process if ever sued?

If the RIAA ever took the Post to court over the issue, Fisher might have to

explain why he omitted important sections of the RIAA's legal brief. He

would have to justify not trying harder to get RIAA comment.

 

If a reporter's work doesn't stand up, the typical remedy at most media

organizations is to issue a correction. That's what the Post should do in

this case.

 

Greg Sandoval is a former Washington Post staff writer.

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

 

* jim fired off this tart reply:

> (from http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9839897-7.html?tag=nefd.top )

>

> January 3, 2008 9:26 PM PST

> RIAA shreds Washington Post story in debate

> Posted by Greg Sandoval

>

> An executive with the music industry's lobbying group engaged in a verbal

> sparring match on Thursday with the Washington Post columnist who alleges

> that the organization is trying to outlaw the practice of copying CDs to a

> computer.

 

Best not to leap to conclusions, then. Sigh.

 

--

This sig has expired. Please reactivate your sig by paying $0.25

and entering the 30-character activation key that will be emailed to

your account.

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

 

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

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 {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/post/20071004-debate-over-making-available-jury-instruction-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

"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?

HeyBub 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).

 

You can't equate songs with programs as the laws pertaining to them are

different.

 

Just because you don't own the rights to the song (which means

collecting royalties) doesn't mean you don't own that particular copy of

the song. And you are free to do whatever you want with that song as

long as if falls under Fair Use. And that certainly includes ripping an

MP3 off a CD to put on your iPod.

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

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

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/post/20071004-debate-over-making-available-jury-instruction-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

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

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

"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

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‚‰

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

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.

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‚‰

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

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

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‚‰

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‚‰

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/post/20071004-debate-over-making-available-jury-instruction-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.