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).

"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

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

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

"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. -)

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.

>

> 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).

>

>

 

 

Fair use also covers time shifting and space

shifting. There are no contracts when buying

music, movies. All fair use decisions on are a

case by case basis. What on case is decided by

the court dose not mean that the next case is the

same so that decision may or may not apply.

The Beta max case fell under fair use not under

the home recording act.

fair use falls under limitations and exceptions

to copyright term in copyrite law. Which is

decided by the courts on a case by case basis.

Your list of five are guide lines that mention

some of the ways copyrited material can be used.

They are not listed in the law. There are others.

still a case by case basis.

The 4 factors in the law are

the purpose and character of the use,

including whether such use is of commercial nature

or is for nonprofit educational purposes

the nature of the copyrighted work

amount and substantially of the portion used

in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole and

the effect of the use upon the potential

market for or value of the copyrighted work.

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.

>

> 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).

>

>

 

 

All of these fall under copyright laws as they

amend legal and non legal uses of copywrite.

Fair use falls under them all. Still decided on a

case by case basis.

RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc.

caver1

dennis@home wrote:

>

>

> "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 has to do with the Home Recording Act of 1992

in the US. All media that is mark for music has

the royalties paid by the manufacturer. So for

home (personal) use you can make as many first

generation copies as you want. Under this law if

you follow it properly you cannot be sued for

copyright infringement.

caver1

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

 

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 14:26:49 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

> "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. -)

 

Hahahaha, Good one =)

 

--

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‚‰

"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

> 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. -)

 

Putting a CD in upside down used to be a joke, then along came

LightScribe and now putting a CD in upside down is a normal

operation... weird how things change.

 

 

 

 

 

--

XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups

The Usenet Improvement Project:

http://improve-usenet.org

"XS11E" <xs11e@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message

news:Xns9A1C6FE7973E4xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1...

> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>

>> 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. -)

>

> Putting a CD in upside down used to be a joke, then along came

> LightScribe and now putting a CD in upside down is a normal

> operation... weird how things change.

>

 

Yes.. it used to take 2 mins to print a label and 20 mins to burn a disk now

it takes 2 mins to burn a disk and 20 mins to burn the label.

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

 

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 18:27:42 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

> "XS11E" <xs11e@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:Xns9A1C6FE7973E4xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1...

>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>>

>>> 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. -)

>>

>> Putting a CD in upside down used to be a joke, then along came

>> LightScribe and now putting a CD in upside down is a normal

>> operation... weird how things change.

>>

>>

> Yes.. it used to take 2 mins to print a label and 20 mins to burn a disk

> now it takes 2 mins to burn a disk and 20 mins to burn the label.

 

Actually if I want it to play in my car, I need to burn at 4x, much

longer than 2 mins :(

 

Lightscribe is cool but man, it could seriously be faster!!

 

--

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‚‰

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:04:32 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>Alias wrote:

>>

>> Please note that this Gestapo crap only happens in the USA. In Europe,

>> every time we buy a CD or DVD, we are paying an extra fee to pay

>> royalties and fair use is the golden rule here.

>>

>> Alias

>

>Uh, the "Gestapo" was a European thing.

>

>The US operates under the rule of contract: that is, a willing buyer and a

>willing seller agreeing to terms of a transaction. We take a dim view of

>thieves.

>

>Often we shoot them. Sometimes we shoot a pre-thief.

>

 

A valid contract requires that BOTH parties understand the terms of

the contract. Under any normal interpretation of contract law, the

EULA and other boilerplate would be thrown out of court. The Music

and computer industry lobbied congress to get the laws changed to make

it completely one sided because very few people would actually agree

to the terms of these agreements if they were expected to read,

understand, and sign them before purchasing.

Ashton Crusher wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:04:32 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>> Alias wrote:

>>> Please note that this Gestapo crap only happens in the USA. In Europe,

>>> every time we buy a CD or DVD, we are paying an extra fee to pay

>>> royalties and fair use is the golden rule here.

>>>

>>> Alias

>> Uh, the "Gestapo" was a European thing.

>>

>> The US operates under the rule of contract: that is, a willing buyer and a

>> willing seller agreeing to terms of a transaction. We take a dim view of

>> thieves.

>>

>> Often we shoot them. Sometimes we shoot a pre-thief.

>>

>

> A valid contract requires that BOTH parties understand the terms of

> the contract. Under any normal interpretation of contract law, the

> EULA and other boilerplate would be thrown out of court. The Music

> and computer industry lobbied congress to get the laws changed to make

> it completely one sided because very few people would actually agree

> to the terms of these agreements if they were expected to read,

> understand, and sign them before purchasing.

 

Yeah right !

People rarely understand all the terms of contracts.

Ever read a credit card contract ?

Think the billions of people with credit cards understand all that ?

Of couse not.

Doesn't invalidate the contract.

Ignorance of the law has never been a good excuse either.

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

 

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 14:03:25 -0500, forty-nine wrote:

> Ashton Crusher wrote:

>> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:04:32 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>>

>>> Alias wrote:

>>>> Please note that this Gestapo crap only happens in the USA. In

>>>> Europe, every time we buy a CD or DVD, we are paying an extra fee to

>>>> pay royalties and fair use is the golden rule here.

>>>>

>>>> Alias

>>> Uh, the "Gestapo" was a European thing.

>>>

>>> The US operates under the rule of contract: that is, a willing buyer

>>> and a willing seller agreeing to terms of a transaction. We take a dim

>>> view of thieves.

>>>

>>> Often we shoot them. Sometimes we shoot a pre-thief.

>>>

>>>

>> A valid contract requires that BOTH parties understand the terms of the

>> contract. Under any normal interpretation of contract law, the EULA

>> and other boilerplate would be thrown out of court. The Music and

>> computer industry lobbied congress to get the laws changed to make it

>> completely one sided because very few people would actually agree to

>> the terms of these agreements if they were expected to read,

>> understand, and sign them before purchasing.

>

> Yeah right !

> People rarely understand all the terms of contracts. Ever read a credit

> card contract ?

> Think the billions of people with credit cards understand all that ? Of

> couse not.

> Doesn't invalidate the contract.

> Ignorance of the law has never been a good excuse either.

 

Out of curiosity, am I the only one here that thinks that one shouldn't

be an attorney (and not need to consult one) before going out and buying

a damn MUSIC CD?!?

 

Credit card contracts are one thing involving potentially thousands of

dollars in loaned money.

 

But man, it's a frigging music CD for 15.95 or whatever they charge these

days!!

 

--

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 wrote:

> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 14:03:25 -0500, forty-nine wrote:

>

>> Ashton Crusher wrote:

>>> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:04:32 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>> Please note that this Gestapo crap only happens in the USA. In

>>>>> Europe, every time we buy a CD or DVD, we are paying an extra fee to

>>>>> pay royalties and fair use is the golden rule here.

>>>>>

>>>>> Alias

>>>> Uh, the "Gestapo" was a European thing.

>>>>

>>>> The US operates under the rule of contract: that is, a willing buyer

>>>> and a willing seller agreeing to terms of a transaction. We take a dim

>>>> view of thieves.

>>>>

>>>> Often we shoot them. Sometimes we shoot a pre-thief.

>>>>

>>>>

>>> A valid contract requires that BOTH parties understand the terms of the

>>> contract. Under any normal interpretation of contract law, the EULA

>>> and other boilerplate would be thrown out of court. The Music and

>>> computer industry lobbied congress to get the laws changed to make it

>>> completely one sided because very few people would actually agree to

>>> the terms of these agreements if they were expected to read,

>>> understand, and sign them before purchasing.

>> Yeah right !

>> People rarely understand all the terms of contracts. Ever read a credit

>> card contract ?

>> Think the billions of people with credit cards understand all that ? Of

>> couse not.

>> Doesn't invalidate the contract.

>> Ignorance of the law has never been a good excuse either.

>

> Out of curiosity, am I the only one here that thinks that one shouldn't

> be an attorney (and not need to consult one) before going out and buying

> a damn MUSIC CD?!?

>

> Credit card contracts are one thing involving potentially thousands of

> dollars in loaned money.

>

> But man, it's a frigging music CD for 15.95 or whatever they charge these

> days!!

>

 

No, I believe that once you but a CD...do what you want with it.

But a consumer not "understanding" a contract doesn't invalidate it.

When you "sign" a contract , you agree to the terms and conditions.

When you click "yes" or "install", you agree to an EULA.

Being that people do neither with CD's...???

 

This whole issue is almost a moot point...as it would be impossible to

enforce.

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

> No, I believe that once you but a CD...do what you want with it.

> But a consumer not "understanding" a contract doesn't invalidate

> it. When you "sign" a contract , you agree to the terms and

> conditions. When you click "yes" or "install", you agree to an

> EULA. Being that people do neither with CD's...???

>

> This whole issue is almost a moot point...as it would be

> impossible to enforce.

 

Hehehe.... yeah, right, sure! Google "RIAA suits" to see just how many

times they HAVE enforced the contract. Here's one locally that's still

ongoing but they're bankrupting the guy with legal fees so that's

enforcement of a kind... read on:

 

==========================================================

Music lover fights suit claiming he shared music illegally

 

Ofelia Madrid

The Arizona Republic

Jan. 2, 2008 07:04 PM

A Scottsdale man is fighting back against a record-industry lawsuit

accusing him of sharing 2,000 songs freely across computer networks.

 

The Recording Industry Association of America demands $40,000 from

part-time cabdriver Jeffrey Howell, who claims he did nothing wrong.

 

"They have no evidence of me giving copies to anyone," Howell said.

 

The association, according to Phoenix federal-court records, said its

agents could access Howell's music collection through Kazaa, an

Internet file-swapping Web site.

 

His case, begun in 2006, is scheduled for oral arguments Jan. 24.

 

Howell said all he did was transfer his CD-music collection to his

computer.

 

He did have a Kazaa account, but claims he had no idea his entire hard

drive of about 2,000 1970s rock songs was being shared with the public.

 

"As near as I can tell, they're saying that if they could see my music

that it must have been in my shared folder," Howell said.

 

The recording industry has gone after 20,000 people for sharing music

since 2000, after forcing file-sharing service Napster to shut down.

 

The case against Howell recently gained national attention after the

Washington Post reported that the record industry was going after folks

who rip their personal CD collections to their computer's hard drives.

 

That is incorrect, said Jonathan Lamy, a spokesman for the record

industry.

 

"This is one of our plain old illegal-downloading cases," he said of

the suit against Howell. "This is not about making personal-use copies.

The record industry continues to have no objection to that."

 

It becomes a problem when people download music to their computer, then

share it with others.

 

Howell said he turned off the file-sharing setting on his computer a

dozen times and doesn't know what happened.

 

For Howell, this lawsuit has left him with a distaste for enjoying

music on his computer.

 

"I used to spend days playing with music," Howell said. He loved

putting together his favorite songs to listen to during his cab drives.

 

"Back in the day, everybody made mix tapes," Howell said. "Why carry

around 40 of your favorite CDs when you could put your favorite songs

on three?"

 

Howell said he has been representing himself in court because area

lawyers wouldn't take his case.

 

Every few weeks, Howell gets legal documents in the mail.

 

"Out of 30 pages, I only understand like 20 words. I'm reading through

these documents 20, 30 times trying to make sense of them," he said.

 

The record industry recently filed a brief for summary judgment. Howell

said it asked him to pay $40,000.

 

"Every time they file, it seems to be something different. And I have

to contest what they said. I'm sitting at home with a personal

computer, not making thousands of CDs selling them at a park and swap.

We have nothing and they're suing us," Howell said.

 

 

 

 

--

XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups

The Usenet Improvement Project:

http://improve-usenet.org

"XS11E" <xs11e@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message

news:Xns9A1C8FD85D181xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1...

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

>

>> No, I believe that once you but a CD...do what you want with it.

>> But a consumer not "understanding" a contract doesn't invalidate

>> it. When you "sign" a contract , you agree to the terms and

>> conditions. When you click "yes" or "install", you agree to an

>> EULA. Being that people do neither with CD's...???

>>

>> This whole issue is almost a moot point...as it would be

>> impossible to enforce.

>

> Hehehe.... yeah, right, sure! Google "RIAA suits" to see just how many

> times they HAVE enforced the contract. Here's one locally that's still

> ongoing but they're bankrupting the guy with legal fees so that's

> enforcement of a kind... read on:

>

> ==========================================================

> Music lover fights suit claiming he shared music illegally

>

> Ofelia Madrid

> The Arizona Republic

> Jan. 2, 2008 07:04 PM

> A Scottsdale man is fighting back against a record-industry lawsuit

> accusing him of sharing 2,000 songs freely across computer networks.

>

> The Recording Industry Association of America demands $40,000 from

> part-time cabdriver Jeffrey Howell, who claims he did nothing wrong.

>

> "They have no evidence of me giving copies to anyone," Howell said.

>

> The association, according to Phoenix federal-court records, said its

> agents could access Howell's music collection through Kazaa, an

> Internet file-swapping Web site.

>

> His case, begun in 2006, is scheduled for oral arguments Jan. 24.

>

> Howell said all he did was transfer his CD-music collection to his

> computer.

>

> He did have a Kazaa account, but claims he had no idea his entire hard

> drive of about 2,000 1970s rock songs was being shared with the public.

>

> "As near as I can tell, they're saying that if they could see my music

> that it must have been in my shared folder," Howell said.

>

> The recording industry has gone after 20,000 people for sharing music

> since 2000, after forcing file-sharing service Napster to shut down.

>

> The case against Howell recently gained national attention after the

> Washington Post reported that the record industry was going after folks

> who rip their personal CD collections to their computer's hard drives.

>

> That is incorrect, said Jonathan Lamy, a spokesman for the record

> industry.

>

> "This is one of our plain old illegal-downloading cases," he said of

> the suit against Howell. "This is not about making personal-use copies.

> The record industry continues to have no objection to that."

>

> It becomes a problem when people download music to their computer, then

> share it with others.

>

> Howell said he turned off the file-sharing setting on his computer a

> dozen times and doesn't know what happened.

>

> For Howell, this lawsuit has left him with a distaste for enjoying

> music on his computer.

>

> "I used to spend days playing with music," Howell said. He loved

> putting together his favorite songs to listen to during his cab drives.

>

> "Back in the day, everybody made mix tapes," Howell said. "Why carry

> around 40 of your favorite CDs when you could put your favorite songs

> on three?"

>

> Howell said he has been representing himself in court because area

> lawyers wouldn't take his case.

>

> Every few weeks, Howell gets legal documents in the mail.

>

> "Out of 30 pages, I only understand like 20 words. I'm reading through

> these documents 20, 30 times trying to make sense of them," he said.

>

> The record industry recently filed a brief for summary judgment. Howell

> said it asked him to pay $40,000.

>

> "Every time they file, it seems to be something different. And I have

> to contest what they said. I'm sitting at home with a personal

> computer, not making thousands of CDs selling them at a park and swap.

> We have nothing and they're suing us," Howell said.

>

>

>

 

That's a poor example.

The guy had a Kazaa account , yet had no idea he was sharing songs?

Bullshoot.

That kind of person should get sued.

I don't have a Kazaa account...know why ?

Because I buy CD's and rip them to my PC.

When they take me to court...then start the pity party.

But that dude was doing exactly what they said he was doing...why else would

you even have Kazaa?

"XS11E" <xs11e@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message

news:Xns9A1C8FD85D181xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1...

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

>

>> No, I believe that once you but a CD...do what you want with it.

>> But a consumer not "understanding" a contract doesn't invalidate

>> it. When you "sign" a contract , you agree to the terms and

>> conditions. When you click "yes" or "install", you agree to an

>> EULA. Being that people do neither with CD's...???

>>

>> This whole issue is almost a moot point...as it would be

>> impossible to enforce.

>

> Hehehe.... yeah, right, sure! Google "RIAA suits" to see just how many

> times they HAVE enforced the contract. Here's one locally that's still

> ongoing but they're bankrupting the guy with legal fees so that's

> enforcement of a kind... read on:

>

> ==========================================================

> Music lover fights suit claiming he shared music illegally

>

> Ofelia Madrid

> The Arizona Republic

> Jan. 2, 2008 07:04 PM

> A Scottsdale man is fighting back against a record-industry lawsuit

> accusing him of sharing 2,000 songs freely across computer networks.

>

> The Recording Industry Association of America demands $40,000 from

> part-time cabdriver Jeffrey Howell, who claims he did nothing wrong.

>

> "They have no evidence of me giving copies to anyone," Howell said.

>

> The association, according to Phoenix federal-court records, said its

> agents could access Howell's music collection through Kazaa, an

> Internet file-swapping Web site.

>

> His case, begun in 2006, is scheduled for oral arguments Jan. 24.

>

> Howell said all he did was transfer his CD-music collection to his

> computer.

>

> He did have a Kazaa account, but claims he had no idea his entire hard

> drive of about 2,000 1970s rock songs was being shared with the public.

>

> "As near as I can tell, they're saying that if they could see my music

> that it must have been in my shared folder," Howell said.

>

> The recording industry has gone after 20,000 people for sharing music

> since 2000, after forcing file-sharing service Napster to shut down.

>

> The case against Howell recently gained national attention after the

> Washington Post reported that the record industry was going after folks

> who rip their personal CD collections to their computer's hard drives.

>

> That is incorrect, said Jonathan Lamy, a spokesman for the record

> industry.

>

> "This is one of our plain old illegal-downloading cases," he said of

> the suit against Howell. "This is not about making personal-use copies.

> The record industry continues to have no objection to that."

>

> It becomes a problem when people download music to their computer, then

> share it with others.

>

> Howell said he turned off the file-sharing setting on his computer a

> dozen times and doesn't know what happened.

>

> For Howell, this lawsuit has left him with a distaste for enjoying

> music on his computer.

>

> "I used to spend days playing with music," Howell said. He loved

> putting together his favorite songs to listen to during his cab drives.

>

> "Back in the day, everybody made mix tapes," Howell said. "Why carry

> around 40 of your favorite CDs when you could put your favorite songs

> on three?"

>

> Howell said he has been representing himself in court because area

> lawyers wouldn't take his case.

>

> Every few weeks, Howell gets legal documents in the mail.

>

> "Out of 30 pages, I only understand like 20 words. I'm reading through

> these documents 20, 30 times trying to make sense of them," he said.

>

> The record industry recently filed a brief for summary judgment. Howell

> said it asked him to pay $40,000.

>

> "Every time they file, it seems to be something different. And I have

> to contest what they said. I'm sitting at home with a personal

> computer, not making thousands of CDs selling them at a park and swap.

> We have nothing and they're suing us," Howell said.

>

>

>

>

> --

> XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups

> The Usenet Improvement Project:

> http://improve-usenet.org

 

What's funny about that story is he is doing exactly what most people

do...faking ignorance.

I had a Kazaa account setup...I didn't know I was sharing them...BooHoo.

I tried 12 times to disable file sharing...BooHoo.

 

I've never enabled file sharing...never mind disabling it TWELVE times...so

he is looking to "pretend" that it is a settings issue on a PC that is doing

things beyond his control.

Maybe it will work.

He may get a jury that is full of people frustrated by PC's...maybe they

will find in his favor.

But anybody using Kazaa...far as I know it has but one intended purpose.

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

 

Stephan Rose wrote:

> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 14:03:25 -0500, forty-nine wrote:

>

>> Ashton Crusher wrote:

>>> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:04:32 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>> Please note that this Gestapo crap only happens in the USA. In

>>>>> Europe, every time we buy a CD or DVD, we are paying an extra fee to

>>>>> pay royalties and fair use is the golden rule here.

>>>>>

>>>>> Alias

>>>> Uh, the "Gestapo" was a European thing.

>>>>

>>>> The US operates under the rule of contract: that is, a willing buyer

>>>> and a willing seller agreeing to terms of a transaction. We take a dim

>>>> view of thieves.

>>>>

>>>> Often we shoot them. Sometimes we shoot a pre-thief.

>>>>

>>>>

>>> A valid contract requires that BOTH parties understand the terms of the

>>> contract. Under any normal interpretation of contract law, the EULA

>>> and other boilerplate would be thrown out of court. The Music and

>>> computer industry lobbied congress to get the laws changed to make it

>>> completely one sided because very few people would actually agree to

>>> the terms of these agreements if they were expected to read,

>>> understand, and sign them before purchasing.

>> Yeah right !

>> People rarely understand all the terms of contracts. Ever read a credit

>> card contract ?

>> Think the billions of people with credit cards understand all that ? Of

>> couse not.

>> Doesn't invalidate the contract.

>> Ignorance of the law has never been a good excuse either.

>

> Out of curiosity, am I the only one here that thinks that one shouldn't

> be an attorney (and not need to consult one) before going out and buying

> a damn MUSIC CD?!?

>

> Credit card contracts are one thing involving potentially thousands of

> dollars in loaned money.

>

> But man, it's a frigging music CD for 15.95 or whatever they charge these

> days!!

>

 

 

 

It amazes me how many are okay with the way things

are heading, and make excuses for the way big

business acts.

I buy most of my music used thru junk and antique

stores.

caver1

forty-nine wrote:

>

> "XS11E" <xs11e@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:Xns9A1C8FD85D181xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1...

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

>>

>>> No, I believe that once you but a CD...do what you want with it.

>>> But a consumer not "understanding" a contract doesn't invalidate

>>> it. When you "sign" a contract , you agree to the terms and

>>> conditions. When you click "yes" or "install", you agree to an

>>> EULA. Being that people do neither with CD's...???

>>>

>>> This whole issue is almost a moot point...as it would be

>>> impossible to enforce.

>>

>> Hehehe.... yeah, right, sure! Google "RIAA suits" to see just how many

>> times they HAVE enforced the contract. Here's one locally that's still

>> ongoing but they're bankrupting the guy with legal fees so that's

>> enforcement of a kind... read on:

>>

>> ==========================================================

>> Music lover fights suit claiming he shared music illegally

>>

>> Ofelia Madrid

>> The Arizona Republic

>> Jan. 2, 2008 07:04 PM

>> A Scottsdale man is fighting back against a record-industry lawsuit

>> accusing him of sharing 2,000 songs freely across computer networks.

>>

>> The Recording Industry Association of America demands $40,000 from

>> part-time cabdriver Jeffrey Howell, who claims he did nothing wrong.

>>

>> "They have no evidence of me giving copies to anyone," Howell said.

>>

>> The association, according to Phoenix federal-court records, said its

>> agents could access Howell's music collection through Kazaa, an

>> Internet file-swapping Web site.

>>

>> His case, begun in 2006, is scheduled for oral arguments Jan. 24.

>>

>> Howell said all he did was transfer his CD-music collection to his

>> computer.

>>

>> He did have a Kazaa account, but claims he had no idea his entire hard

>> drive of about 2,000 1970s rock songs was being shared with the public.

>>

>> "As near as I can tell, they're saying that if they could see my music

>> that it must have been in my shared folder," Howell said.

>>

>> The recording industry has gone after 20,000 people for sharing music

>> since 2000, after forcing file-sharing service Napster to shut down.

>>

>> The case against Howell recently gained national attention after the

>> Washington Post reported that the record industry was going after folks

>> who rip their personal CD collections to their computer's hard drives.

>>

>> That is incorrect, said Jonathan Lamy, a spokesman for the record

>> industry.

>>

>> "This is one of our plain old illegal-downloading cases," he said of

>> the suit against Howell. "This is not about making personal-use copies.

>> The record industry continues to have no objection to that."

>>

>> It becomes a problem when people download music to their computer, then

>> share it with others.

>>

>> Howell said he turned off the file-sharing setting on his computer a

>> dozen times and doesn't know what happened.

>>

>> For Howell, this lawsuit has left him with a distaste for enjoying

>> music on his computer.

>>

>> "I used to spend days playing with music," Howell said. He loved

>> putting together his favorite songs to listen to during his cab drives.

>>

>> "Back in the day, everybody made mix tapes," Howell said. "Why carry

>> around 40 of your favorite CDs when you could put your favorite songs

>> on three?"

>>

>> Howell said he has been representing himself in court because area

>> lawyers wouldn't take his case.

>>

>> Every few weeks, Howell gets legal documents in the mail.

>>

>> "Out of 30 pages, I only understand like 20 words. I'm reading through

>> these documents 20, 30 times trying to make sense of them," he said.

>>

>> The record industry recently filed a brief for summary judgment. Howell

>> said it asked him to pay $40,000.

>>

>> "Every time they file, it seems to be something different. And I have

>> to contest what they said. I'm sitting at home with a personal

>> computer, not making thousands of CDs selling them at a park and swap.

>> We have nothing and they're suing us," Howell said.

>>

>>

>>

>

> That's a poor example.

> The guy had a Kazaa account , yet had no idea he was sharing songs?

> Bullshoot.

> That kind of person should get sued.

> I don't have a Kazaa account...know why ?

> Because I buy CD's and rip them to my PC.

> When they take me to court...then start the pity party.

> But that dude was doing exactly what they said he was doing...why else

> would you even have Kazaa?

 

 

 

He likes malware.

caver1

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

> That's a poor example.

 

It's one example. Did you Google "RIAA suits"

 

 

 

 

--

XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups

The Usenet Improvement Project:

http://improve-usenet.org

"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message

news:%23fxJit%23TIHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> forty-nine wrote:

>>

>> "XS11E" <xs11e@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message

>> news:Xns9A1C8FD85D181xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1...

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

>>>

>>>> No, I believe that once you but a CD...do what you want with it.

>>>> But a consumer not "understanding" a contract doesn't invalidate

>>>> it. When you "sign" a contract , you agree to the terms and

>>>> conditions. When you click "yes" or "install", you agree to an

>>>> EULA. Being that people do neither with CD's...???

>>>>

>>>> This whole issue is almost a moot point...as it would be

>>>> impossible to enforce.

>>>

>>> Hehehe.... yeah, right, sure! Google "RIAA suits" to see just how many

>>> times they HAVE enforced the contract. Here's one locally that's still

>>> ongoing but they're bankrupting the guy with legal fees so that's

>>> enforcement of a kind... read on:

>>>

>>> ==========================================================

>>> Music lover fights suit claiming he shared music illegally

>>>

>>> Ofelia Madrid

>>> The Arizona Republic

>>> Jan. 2, 2008 07:04 PM

>>> A Scottsdale man is fighting back against a record-industry lawsuit

>>> accusing him of sharing 2,000 songs freely across computer networks.

>>>

>>> The Recording Industry Association of America demands $40,000 from

>>> part-time cabdriver Jeffrey Howell, who claims he did nothing wrong.

>>>

>>> "They have no evidence of me giving copies to anyone," Howell said.

>>>

>>> The association, according to Phoenix federal-court records, said its

>>> agents could access Howell's music collection through Kazaa, an

>>> Internet file-swapping Web site.

>>>

>>> His case, begun in 2006, is scheduled for oral arguments Jan. 24.

>>>

>>> Howell said all he did was transfer his CD-music collection to his

>>> computer.

>>>

>>> He did have a Kazaa account, but claims he had no idea his entire hard

>>> drive of about 2,000 1970s rock songs was being shared with the public.

>>>

>>> "As near as I can tell, they're saying that if they could see my music

>>> that it must have been in my shared folder," Howell said.

>>>

>>> The recording industry has gone after 20,000 people for sharing music

>>> since 2000, after forcing file-sharing service Napster to shut down.

>>>

>>> The case against Howell recently gained national attention after the

>>> Washington Post reported that the record industry was going after folks

>>> who rip their personal CD collections to their computer's hard drives.

>>>

>>> That is incorrect, said Jonathan Lamy, a spokesman for the record

>>> industry.

>>>

>>> "This is one of our plain old illegal-downloading cases," he said of

>>> the suit against Howell. "This is not about making personal-use copies.

>>> The record industry continues to have no objection to that."

>>>

>>> It becomes a problem when people download music to their computer, then

>>> share it with others.

>>>

>>> Howell said he turned off the file-sharing setting on his computer a

>>> dozen times and doesn't know what happened.

>>>

>>> For Howell, this lawsuit has left him with a distaste for enjoying

>>> music on his computer.

>>>

>>> "I used to spend days playing with music," Howell said. He loved

>>> putting together his favorite songs to listen to during his cab drives.

>>>

>>> "Back in the day, everybody made mix tapes," Howell said. "Why carry

>>> around 40 of your favorite CDs when you could put your favorite songs

>>> on three?"

>>>

>>> Howell said he has been representing himself in court because area

>>> lawyers wouldn't take his case.

>>>

>>> Every few weeks, Howell gets legal documents in the mail.

>>>

>>> "Out of 30 pages, I only understand like 20 words. I'm reading through

>>> these documents 20, 30 times trying to make sense of them," he said.

>>>

>>> The record industry recently filed a brief for summary judgment. Howell

>>> said it asked him to pay $40,000.

>>>

>>> "Every time they file, it seems to be something different. And I have

>>> to contest what they said. I'm sitting at home with a personal

>>> computer, not making thousands of CDs selling them at a park and swap.

>>> We have nothing and they're suing us," Howell said.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>

>> That's a poor example.

>> The guy had a Kazaa account , yet had no idea he was sharing songs?

>> Bullshoot.

>> That kind of person should get sued.

>> I don't have a Kazaa account...know why ?

>> Because I buy CD's and rip them to my PC.

>> When they take me to court...then start the pity party.

>> But that dude was doing exactly what they said he was doing...why else

>> would you even have Kazaa?

>

>

>

> He likes malware.

> caver1

 

LOL

Seriously...people seaching for Kazaa, or Limewire, or P2P...all know

EXACTLY what they are wanting to do.

A quick search of "free music"...brings up all these sites.

The word "100% legal" pops up too.

The file sharing part is the "100% legal" part...whether or not the mention

of "copyright" material comes up...don't know...don't wanna know.

People messing with this P2P stuff got nobody but themselves to blame.

It might only be about "$15.95" CD's...but is it worth going to jail or

getting fined ?

Not to me.

Ask my wife...."shopping is fun"...so just go BUY the GD music.

"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

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