Downloading flying music?

[Jay Honeck]

We've got the PS Engineering CD/Intercom in our plane, and listen to CDs on
long trips.

I am obviously slipping into "dinosaur" status, as I have never downloaded
music, for "burning" onto a blank CD. I *have* burned CDs, but I've always
done it from tracks played off of another CD.

Does anyone here burn CDs for listening while in flight? Any recommended
sites? Tips? Are these things still free, or did all the freebies get sued
out of existence?

Thanks!

BTW: We've got FOUR new additions to the Rec.Aviation Rogue's Gallery!
They are:

- The famous (infamous?) Badwater Bill Phillips, and a zillion planes he's
flown...
- Ross Richardson and his super 180 hp 172!
- CJ Campbell, world-famous flight instructor, and his fabulous 206!
- Bryan Chaisone, and his cool Robinson R-22 helicopter...

See all these guys at http://www.alexisparkinn.com/rec_aviation.htm .
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[EDR]

In article <gCcRb.155799$xy6.746831@attbi_s02>, Jay Honeck
> wrote:

> Does anyone here burn CDs for listening while in flight? Any recommended
> sites? Tips? Are these things still free, or did all the freebies get sued
> out of existence?

Jay, you are forgetting the first rule of parenthood in the digital
age... "Go ask your kids!" If they don't know how, one of their
classmates does.

Just tell your child what songs you want, don't ask questions like
"Where did you get this?", and it will get done in a matter of minutes.


And remember this, above all, do it at the hotel through a router over
a broadband connection and NEVER, EVER, do this type of work on a
computer that can be traced back to you! ;-)

(When the Music Cops come, you can always claim that it must have been
a customer who asked to use it to access the internet to check their
email.)

[Jay Honeck]

> you will not care if this is legal or not, would you?

Not particularly. I would assume it's legal if it's downloaded from a
"real" website.

BTW: Do you know who owns the "copyrights" to the aviation videos? I'd be
glad to give them attribution, if anyone knows who filmed them? They were
all received off the internet, or from friends via email, with no strings
attached.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Michael 182]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> EDR > wrote:
>

> or: check in at Jay's hotel. Download nasty child-p0rn. It get's tracked
down to
> the Hotel's IP/account. Who has the problem?

Mostly, the guy who has the stuff on their computer - in any form. I am a
forensic computer specialist - cases are built based on possesion, not, for
the most part, bandwidth.

Michael

>
> #m
> --
> http://www.MoveOn.org/ - - - - - http://www.bushin30seconds.org/
>
> http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=9007&TagID=2

[BigNick73]

hmm i have one that i use ALOT called "Soul Seek"
http://www.slsknet.org/
it works great for me has a bit of a learning curve to it and sometimes you
have to wait but no thats no big deal if you have broadband thats up 24/7.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:gCcRb.155799$xy6.746831@attbi_s02...
> We've got the PS Engineering CD/Intercom in our plane, and listen to CDs
on
> long trips.
>
> I am obviously slipping into "dinosaur" status, as I have never downloaded
> music, for "burning" onto a blank CD. I *have* burned CDs, but I've
always
> done it from tracks played off of another CD.
>
> Does anyone here burn CDs for listening while in flight? Any recommended
> sites? Tips? Are these things still free, or did all the freebies get
sued
> out of existence?
>
> Thanks!
>
> BTW: We've got FOUR new additions to the Rec.Aviation Rogue's Gallery!
> They are:
>
> - The famous (infamous?) Badwater Bill Phillips, and a zillion planes he's
> flown...
> - Ross Richardson and his super 180 hp 172!
> - CJ Campbell, world-famous flight instructor, and his fabulous 206!
> - Bryan Chaisone, and his cool Robinson R-22 helicopter...
>
> See all these guys at http://www.alexisparkinn.com/rec_aviation.htm .
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Jens Krueger]

Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Does anyone here burn CDs for listening while in flight?

Sure. From my own CDs and also downloaded from...

> Any recommended
> sites?

....the Apple Musicstore: <http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/>

Best selection of music you can find online. Plus you can burn as many
CDs as you like, 100% legal. For Mac and PC.

> Tips? Are these things still free,
> or did all the freebies get sued
> out of existence?

It was never and will never be "free". It was always theft. But now
we're slowly getting alternatives.

Cheers,
Jens

--
I don't accept any emails right now. Usenet replys only.

[nuke]

Itunes looks good. Too bad you have to have to be in the US to use it. I
guess Sir William doesn't need the business from the rest of us.
nuke
"Jens Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> > Does anyone here burn CDs for listening while in flight?
>
> Sure. From my own CDs and also downloaded from...
>
> > Any recommended
> > sites?
>
> ...the Apple Musicstore: <http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/>
>
> Best selection of music you can find online. Plus you can burn as many
> CDs as you like, 100% legal. For Mac and PC.
>
> > Tips? Are these things still free,
> > or did all the freebies get sued
> > out of existence?
>
> It was never and will never be "free". It was always theft. But now
> we're slowly getting alternatives.
>
> Cheers,
> Jens
>
> --
> I don't accept any emails right now. Usenet replys only.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"nuke" > wrote in message
...
> Itunes looks good. Too bad you have to have to be in the US to use it. I
> guess Sir William doesn't need the business from the rest of us.
> nuke

Do you mean Sir Steven?

> "Jens Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Jay Honeck > wrote:
> >
> > > Does anyone here burn CDs for listening while in flight?
> >
> > Sure. From my own CDs and also downloaded from...
> >
> > > Any recommended
> > > sites?
> >
> > ...the Apple Musicstore: <http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/>
> >
> > Best selection of music you can find online. Plus you can burn as many
> > CDs as you like, 100% legal. For Mac and PC.
> >
> > > Tips? Are these things still free,
> > > or did all the freebies get sued
> > > out of existence?
> >
> > It was never and will never be "free". It was always theft. But now
> > we're slowly getting alternatives.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jens
> >
> > --
> > I don't accept any emails right now. Usenet replys only.
>
>

[Jim Fisher]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> Does anyone here burn CDs for listening while in flight? Any recommended
> sites? Tips? Are these things still free, or did all the freebies get
sued
> out of existence?

Jay, the goobers here all claim ignorance to the most obvious source of
music for burring: File sharing software. I'd bet a whole dollar that most
of the folks saying "But it's illegal!" either are using, have used, or have
a teenage in their house who currently uses this perfectly legal software
for somewhat nefarious purposes.

There are all kinds of this software out there: Morpheus, KaZaa,
DirectConnect and so on. Unfortunately, they all install loads of spyware
on your computer when you install the sharing software which can bring your
computer system to it's virtual knees. If you run a spyware removal utility
on 'em, the program will no longer work.

The solution? Kazaa Lite. It's a hacked version of Kazaa without all the
spyware. It's not a legal piece of software and Kazaa is going after the
KazaaLite people, so I am told, so you may find it hard to find. However,
you might know a manly guy or two you can email privately who can make this
program available to you send this file to you if you are real nice about
it.

Is it illegal to download copyrighted music? OF COURSE! Do people abuse
the system by burning music CDs instead of buying them? Of course! Do I
give a damn? Hell no! Music companies have been screwing me by charging
way too much for their music for a long time. It's about time there was
some competition (illegal or no) that will bring them back to reality.

I use the service every now and then to make compilations of my fave music.
Most - but not all - the compilations I've made are songs form CDs I own (I
have a massive collection). I downloaded some complete CD's and have been
darn glad I didn't buy them because they suck!

Anyway, let me know privately if you need help with the KazaaLite.

--
An Anonymous File Sharing Person

[BigNick73]

i forgot about kazaa lite i still say soulseek is better though
http://www.slsknet.org/
u can also get alot of stuff off gnutella clients such as eMule
and neither one bogs me down w/ a bunch of spyware infact i think neither of
these has any to be honest.
And besides Kazaa Lite K++ is damn near non existant anymore. In fact last
time i was at their website i found the link to soulseek and a few others.


"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > Does anyone here burn CDs for listening while in flight? Any
recommended
> > sites? Tips? Are these things still free, or did all the freebies get
> sued
> > out of existence?
>
> Jay, the goobers here all claim ignorance to the most obvious source of
> music for burring: File sharing software. I'd bet a whole dollar that
most
> of the folks saying "But it's illegal!" either are using, have used, or
have
> a teenage in their house who currently uses this perfectly legal software
> for somewhat nefarious purposes.
>
> There are all kinds of this software out there: Morpheus, KaZaa,
> DirectConnect and so on. Unfortunately, they all install loads of spyware
> on your computer when you install the sharing software which can bring
your
> computer system to it's virtual knees. If you run a spyware removal
utility
> on 'em, the program will no longer work.
>
> The solution? Kazaa Lite. It's a hacked version of Kazaa without all the
> spyware. It's not a legal piece of software and Kazaa is going after the
> KazaaLite people, so I am told, so you may find it hard to find. However,
> you might know a manly guy or two you can email privately who can make
this
> program available to you send this file to you if you are real nice about
> it.
>
> Is it illegal to download copyrighted music? OF COURSE! Do people abuse
> the system by burning music CDs instead of buying them? Of course! Do I
> give a damn? Hell no! Music companies have been screwing me by charging
> way too much for their music for a long time. It's about time there was
> some competition (illegal or no) that will bring them back to reality.
>
> I use the service every now and then to make compilations of my fave
music.
> Most - but not all - the compilations I've made are songs form CDs I own
(I
> have a massive collection). I downloaded some complete CD's and have been
> darn glad I didn't buy them because they suck!
>
> Anyway, let me know privately if you need help with the KazaaLite.
>
> --
> An Anonymous File Sharing Person
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...
> Jay, the goobers here all claim ignorance to the most obvious source of
> music for burring: File sharing software. I'd bet a whole dollar that
most
> of the folks saying "But it's illegal!" either are using, have used, or
have
> a teenage in their house who currently uses this perfectly legal software
> for somewhat nefarious purposes.

It's illegal.

You may send your whole dollar to me at my residence. I believe my address
has been posted here before, so no need for me to do so now.

Not that I expect a low-life like you to actually make good on your wager.

> The solution? Kazaa Lite. It's a hacked version of Kazaa without all the
> spyware. It's not a legal piece of software and Kazaa is going after the
> KazaaLite people, so I am told, so you may find it hard to find.

After all, if you're going to break the law, why bother using legally
obtained software to do it?

> Is it illegal to download copyrighted music? OF COURSE! Do people abuse
> the system by burning music CDs instead of buying them? Of course! Do I
> give a damn? Hell no!

If I'd had any respect for you left after your tirade regarding building
computers, I sure wouldn't have any left now.

> Music companies have been screwing me by charging
> way too much for their music for a long time. It's about time there was
> some competition (illegal or no) that will bring them back to reality.

Here's a thought: don't like the way music companies have been screwing you
by charging way too much for their music? DON'T BUY THEIR MUSIC! Really,
it's that simple. Using your rationalization, anyone who feels that a
particular car is overpriced, or that a particular airplanes is overpriced,
is perfectly well justified in stealing that car or airplane.

> I use the service every now and then to make compilations of my fave
music.
> Most - but not all - the compilations I've made are songs form CDs I own
(I
> have a massive collection).

Why would you waste bandwidth and time downloading music from the Internet
when you can get a legal, higher-quality copy ripping it yourself? Oh,
right...not all the music you're downloading is music you already own.
You're stealing it.

> I downloaded some complete CD's and have been
> darn glad I didn't buy them because they suck!

That still doesn't make it legal, or morally right. Instead, you could
patronize a music store where they allow you to listen to CDs before you
buy. A decade ago, it was only the mom-and-pop stores that allowed this,
but these days even places like Borders, Barnes & Nobles, and the like have
listening kiosks set up. If they don't have the CDs out that you want to
listen to, ask a salesperson, or go to a non-chain store where they will let
you listen to whatever you want.

After all, you're the one touting the benefits of doing business with the
locals, right?

Or even better, since the real reason you're stealing music is that you
think it's overpriced, don't get a copy of the music, whether through
purchase or theft.

> Anyway, let me know privately if you need help with the KazaaLite.

I'm not the kind of guy to go around turning petty, small-minded criminals
like you in, but I sure look forward to hearing that the RIAA or Kazaa has
caught up with your immoral behavior and taken you to the cleaners. Of
course, I realize that statistically speaking, the odds are low they will
find you. But my fantasy remains alive, nonetheless.

Pete

[Earl Grieda]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Jay, the goobers here all claim ignorance to the most obvious source of
> > music for burring: File sharing software. I'd bet a whole dollar that
> most
> > of the folks saying "But it's illegal!" either are using, have used, or
> have
> > a teenage in their house who currently uses this perfectly legal
software
> > for somewhat nefarious purposes.
>
> It's illegal.
>

In a way it really does not seem to be that much differant than recording a
song you like off of the radio.

>....snip snip.......>
> > Music companies have been screwing me by charging
> > way too much for their music for a long time. It's about time there was
> > some competition (illegal or no) that will bring them back to reality.
>
> Here's a thought: don't like the way music companies have been screwing
you
> by charging way too much for their music? DON'T BUY THEIR MUSIC! Really,
> it's that simple. Using your rationalization, anyone who feels that a
> particular car is overpriced, or that a particular airplanes is
overpriced,
> is perfectly well justified in stealing that car or airplane.
>

Stealing cars and airplanes is not the same as downloading music. When
somebody invents a matter relicator that can perfectly copy cars and
airplanes then you better believe people will be using it. When that
happens then downloading music that someone is generous enough to share will
be the same as "stealing that car or airplane".

Earl G.

[Peter Duniho]

"Earl Grieda" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> In a way it really does not seem to be that much differant than recording
a
> song you like off of the radio.

You're right. That too is illegal. Royalties are paid for the song to be
played on the radio, but not for you to record it for your own record
collection.

> Stealing cars and airplanes is not the same as downloading music.

You're right. When you steal a car or an airplane, you wind up with a car
or an airplane. When you steal music, you wind up with music.

However, other than that irrelevant difference, the two acts are identical.
They both are theft.

> When
> somebody invents a matter relicator that can perfectly copy cars and
> airplanes then you better believe people will be using it.

And it will be just as illegal as unauthorized copying of copyrighted
material is today.

> When that
> happens then downloading music that someone is generous enough to share
will
> be the same as "stealing that car or airplane".

It is the same today. A thief by any other name would have as great a
stench. It's still stealing.

Pete

[Blanche]

The only difference is that copyright violations are usually
prosecuted under civil law (money) rather than criminal law
altho it's perfectly legit to go the criminal route. And it's
not just in the US. The Berne Convention/Treaty of 1986 makes
it illegal in most countries (those that signed. China hasn't).

[Jim Fisher]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> Not that I expect a low-life like you to actually make good on your wager.


Yeah, whatever, Pete.

I just looked and have a grand total of 28 songs from various artists on my
hard drive that I've downloaded on this two year old, high quality system
that I built myself. I'm not exactly wearing a eye patch and flying a black
flag.

Besides all that, you are a lying hypocrite.

I dare you to sit there and tell me that you have never, ever, not once,
borrowed/made a copy of a computer game or downloaded a shareware program
and not ever paid for it.

If you say that, I'll never believe it and label you the lying hypocrite
that you are.

Psst: I spit on the sidewalk today, too.

--
Jim Fisher

[Newps]

Peter Duniho wrote:


>
> You're right. That too is illegal. Royalties are paid for the song to be
> played on the radio, but not for you to record it for your own record
> collection.

There is nothing illegal about me recording music for my personal use
from the radio. Same goes for TV.

[Peter Duniho]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:%bfSb.51938$U%5.284839@attbi_s03...
> There is nothing illegal about me recording music for my personal use
> from the radio. Same goes for TV.

If you save the recording, there is. You have the right to time-shift. You
do not have the right to archive (which is what's being discussed here).

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...
> I dare you to sit there and tell me that you have never, ever, not once,
> borrowed/made a copy of a computer game or downloaded a shareware program
> and not ever paid for it.

Borrowing is perfectly legal. Even permanent transfer of the license is
perfectly legal (with or without payment to the original license holder).
Making a copy and redistributing the copy is not. As for paying for
shareware software, the whole point is that you download, try it, and if you
use it beyond whatever trial period is stipulated, you pay for it.
Downloading shareware software and then not paying for it is perfectly
legal, provided you don't use the software beyond the trial period.

As for whether I have ever done any of those legal things, yes I have.
However, I'm not guilty of any of the illegal things you seem to think
impossible to avoid.

But regardless, your original challenge was whether someone "uses this
perfectly legal software for somewhat nefarious purposes". Even if I had
made an illegal copy of a computer game, that would not have applied to your
original "one dollar" challenge.

I have never violated any copyrights through the use of file sharing
software. Not that I ever expect to see the dollar you wagered -- it's just
not in your nature to admit you were wrong -- but facts are facts.

> If you say that, I'll never believe it and label you the lying hypocrite
> that you are.

You won't believe it because you just can't stand the thought that someone
might actually have a point. You can label me whatever you like, it doesn't
give you a leg to stand on, nor does it change the fact that I'm not a
hypocrite, nor that I am not lying.

> Psst: I spit on the sidewalk today, too.

No big surprise there. Why do you even bother to mention it?

News flash for you: the fact that you're a thief doesn't mean everyone else
is too.

Pete

[Robert Moore]

"Peter Duniho" wrote

> Making a copy and redistributing the copy is not.

Pete, you have combined two separate and distinct actions into
one statement. I would readily agree that redistributing a copy
is illegal, however, I think that all of those copy machines in
our public libraries clouds the "making a copy" issue.

It is interesting to note that despite the entertainment industry's
attempts to convince the general public that "music downloading",
their words, will result in a lawsuit, to date all of the filed
lawsuits have been filed against "file sharing", those who make
music files on their computers available for others.

Bob Moore

[Jim Fisher]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> You won't believe it because you just can't stand the thought that someone
> might actually have a point. You can label me whatever you like, it
doesn't
> give you a leg to stand on, nor does it change the fact that I'm not a
> hypocrite, nor that I am not lying.

Everyone's a hypocrite. The only difference is in degree.

Am I a thief because I've downloaded a few dozen songs from the internet
from people who are making them available to me? In your eyes, perhaps. I
sleep comfortably, though, and can look in the mirror without flinching.

>> Psst: I spit on the sidewalk today, too.
>No big surprise there. Why do you even bother to mention it?

Ohhh-kay, I'll explain it to ya', Pete. Listen up 'cause I won't repeat it:
I brought up the spitting on the sidewalk thing because I am not a "thief"
for downloading a few songs any more than I am a felon because I spit on the
sidewalk (which is against the law in my city). There is a difference in
degree that cannot be dismissed by hypocrites like you.

I happen to think that the quality of the songs downloaded from any on-line
source are great for sampling, only. To listen to them on burned CD on a
high quality system (even iTunes "legal" downloads) is like rubbing
fingernails on a chalk board, in my opinion. You get what you pay for. It
doesn't stop me from downloading a few tunes to listen to at work or
sampling a CD or two every now and then.

Someone who downloads gig's of songs and never buys a CD? He's a thief.
Someone who wants a sampling of a few "flying" songs and chooses not to buy
every single CD and downloads them for free? He's an aviation enthusiast
and nothing more.

--
Jim Fisher

[Newps]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> news:%bfSb.51938$U%5.284839@attbi_s03...
>
>>There is nothing illegal about me recording music for my personal use
>>from the radio. Same goes for TV.
>
>
> If you save the recording, there is. You have the right to time-shift. You
> do not have the right to archive (which is what's being discussed here).
>

Yes I do. Anything that comes over the air is mine, for my personal
use. This was an actual court case not too long after VCR's started
getting popular in the early 80's. The case was really brought because
of course everybody skips right over the commercials when they watch
what they taped. The case was won by the defendants, the decision also
stated that a private party can tape and keep for his own personal use
stuff grabbed off the air.

[Newps]

Robert Moore wrote:

> "Peter Duniho" wrote
>
>
>>Making a copy and redistributing the copy is not.
>
>
> Pete, you have combined two separate and distinct actions into
> one statement. I would readily agree that redistributing a copy
> is illegal, however, I think that all of those copy machines in
> our public libraries clouds the "making a copy" issue.

The law allows a fair use of copyrighted material. Anyone who has ever
gone to college and had to pick up class materials at Kinko's knows
this. I think the college profs pushed the envelope on this but their
is a limited amount of a book or magazine that you can make a copy of
and sell to the public.
>
> It is interesting to note that despite the entertainment industry's
> attempts to convince the general public that "music downloading",
> their words, will result in a lawsuit, to date all of the filed
> lawsuits have been filed against "file sharing", those who make
> music files on their computers available for others.

One reason for that is they cannot afford to be seen walking in to court
against a 12 year old. They will lose that one before the first word is
spoken.

[Peter Duniho]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:bKwSb.188426$xy6.966314@attbi_s02...
> [...] The case was won by the defendants, the decision also
> stated that a private party can tape and keep for his own personal use
> stuff grabbed off the air.

If there was an actual court case in which that conclusion was reached, you
should have no trouble providing a specific citation, should you?

I'm aware of an "actual court case" that provided for time-shifting. None
that allow archiving.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Robert Moore" > wrote in message
. 7...
> Pete, you have combined two separate and distinct actions into
> one statement.

You are not allowed to make a copy when the purpose is to redistribute it.
Whether you redistribute the copy or not, copies beyond those needed for
personal and fair use are illegal. In any case, my wording was simply
intended to fit better with Jim's original statements. The point was to
differentiate between "making a copy" and "making a copy and then
redistributing it".

Nevertheless, you are certainly correct that there are situations in which
making copies is legal. It was never my intent to say otherwise.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
. ..
> Everyone's a hypocrite. The only difference is in degree.

Then why bother using the word at all? By your definition, you might as
well have called me "a human being". Your intent was clearly pejorative,
and in that respect, I'm not nearly the hypocrite you are accusing me of.
Certainly, I have done none of the hypocritical acts you accuse me of.

> Am I a thief because I've downloaded a few dozen songs from the internet
> from people who are making them available to me? In your eyes, perhaps.
I
> sleep comfortably, though, and can look in the mirror without flinching.

Rationalization is certainly a useful thing, I admit. You are still a
thief.

> Ohhh-kay, I'll explain it to ya', Pete. Listen up 'cause I won't repeat
it:
> I brought up the spitting on the sidewalk thing because I am not a "thief"
> for downloading a few songs any more than I am a felon because I spit on
the
> sidewalk

You're a thief and a felon. So what? Like I said, it's not like that's
some sort of newsflash.

> (which is against the law in my city). There is a difference in
> degree that cannot be dismissed by hypocrites like you.

As opposed to hypocrites like you? You keep using that word, as if it means
something, and yet you claim it means nothing. Why do you keep using it?

> Someone who downloads gig's of songs and never buys a CD? He's a thief.
> Someone who wants a sampling of a few "flying" songs and chooses not to
buy
> every single CD and downloads them for free? He's an aviation enthusiast
> and nothing more.

So if I take a single piece of gum from the display at the local 7-11
without paying for it, I'm not a thief, because I did not exceed your
arbitrary "minimum damage" criteria? All I was doing was seeing whether I'd
like that kind of gum, after all.

Very convenient for you, at least with respect to your sleeping at night.
You are, however, still a thief in most people's eyes, even if not your own.
Certainly in the law's eyes (which is all that really matters) you are a
thief.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> > Ohhh-kay, I'll explain it to ya', Pete. Listen up 'cause I won't repeat
> it:
> > I brought up the spitting on the sidewalk thing because I am not a
"thief"
> > for downloading a few songs any more than I am a felon because I spit on
> the
> > sidewalk
>
> You're a thief and a felon. So what? Like I said, it's not like that's
> some sort of newsflash.

Actually, I take that back. I doubt that spitting on the sidewalk is a
felony offense in your city, in spite of your implication that it is. It's
much more likely it's a misdemeanor offense, making you a thief and a
small-time criminal.

Pete

[John Galban]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> news:%bfSb.51938$U%5.284839@attbi_s03...
> > There is nothing illegal about me recording music for my personal use
> > from the radio. Same goes for TV.
>
> If you save the recording, there is. You have the right to time-shift. You
> do not have the right to archive (which is what's being discussed here).

You are applying the decision of the USSC in the the Betamax case
(TV) to sound recording from the radio. I've read the Betamax
decision and while it often mentions time-shifting as a "fair use"
activity, I don't recall a specific reference to archival use being
illegal (though the plaintiff attempted to make that point).

More on point (to the radio question) is the Sound Recording
Amendment of 1971 (P.L 92-140, 85 Stat. 391) which directly addressed
and permited home recording of broadcast audio for personal use. This
was carried over into the the 1976 overhaul of the Copyright Act. The
1976 version restricts recording to free public broadcast (no pay
service recording) and prohibits re-broadcast.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Peter Duniho]

"John Galban" > wrote in message
om...
> [...] The
> 1976 version restricts recording to free public broadcast (no pay
> service recording) and prohibits re-broadcast.

I'm not sure how that applies to the "same goes for TV" comment. As for the
radio question, I'll look at the 1976 changes you mention, but being
permitted to record a broadcast isn't the same as being permitted to save
that recording in lieu of purchasing a proper license for the copyrighted
material. Nothing in your description contradicts my understanding of the
copyright law.

Pete

[Newps]

Peter Duniho wrote:

>
> I'm not sure how that applies to the "same goes for TV" comment.

OK, then look at it from the other end. When the TV police show up and
look thru my tapes and DVD's where do they draw the line? How old is
too old? Do I have 24 hours to watch that program? 48? What if I'm on
vacation and don't get back for two weeks? You will not find a
specified time because it is not illegal.

[Peter Duniho]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:WlASb.185888$I06.2043887@attbi_s01...
> OK, then look at it from the other end. When the TV police show up and
> look thru my tapes and DVD's where do they draw the line?

Well, from a practical point of view, there are no TV police. You can tape
to your heart's content, and no one really cares.

Frankly, I feel that this means the law is screwed up and that it ought to
be rewritten to allow that sort of copying. But that doesn't change the
fact that it is technically illegal.

Pete

[Jim Fisher]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> news:bKwSb.188426$xy6.966314@attbi_s02...
> > [...] The case was won by the defendants, the decision also
> > stated that a private party can tape and keep for his own personal use
> > stuff grabbed off the air.
>
> If there was an actual court case in which that conclusion was reached,
you
> should have no trouble providing a specific citation, should you?

Pete, this was national news back in the eighties! Where were you, man?
The attention give to it was of the same magnitude as the RIAA nonsense
today!

Newps could probably give you a cite if he took enough time . . . Aww hell,
let me take a look for you . . . . <google, google, tap tap> Ah, here it
is. In no more than 10 seconds, too (ain't the 'net just great?).:

From: http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/10105

Summary:
"The MP3 generation may not remember it, but 20 years ago, Hollywood
fell just one vote short of winning a ban on the VCR. This month
marks the 20th anniversary of the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in
Universal City Studios v. Sony, the case in which two movie
studios asked the federal courts to impound all Betamax VCRs as
tools of "piracy."

[Jim Fisher]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> Well, from a practical point of view, there are no TV police. You can
tape
> to your heart's content, and no one really cares.

And the difference between that and downloading MPS is what, Pete?


> Frankly, I feel that this means the law is screwed up and that it ought to
> be rewritten to allow that sort of copying. But that doesn't change the
> fact that it is technically illegal.

"Technically" my ass. You are so ready to label me a pirate and a thief.
But you do the same thing with VCRs and cable channels and call it
"technically illegal.

Hypocrite . . . Not to mention completely ignorant of the law governing
these matters.

--
Jim Fisher

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...
> Pete, this was national news back in the eighties! Where were you, man?

I was here, and recall that the decision allowed time-shifting, but not
archiving. As I've already stated.

> The attention give to it was of the same magnitude as the RIAA nonsense
> today!
>
> Newps could probably give you a cite if he took enough time . . . Aww
hell,
> let me take a look for you . . . . <google, google, tap tap> Ah, here it
> is. In no more than 10 seconds, too (ain't the 'net just great?).:

Unfortunately, the citation you've provided only relates how the VCR was
deemed legal. File sharing software is legal as well, but that doesn't mean
that all uses of the software are legal, nor are all uses of the VCR legal.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...
> And the difference between that and downloading MPS is what, Pete?

There is none.

> "Technically" my ass. You are so ready to label me a pirate and a thief.
> But you do the same thing with VCRs and cable channels and call it
> "technically illegal.

I do not do the same thing with VCRs and cable channels. I feel that the
law is wrong, but I obey it nonetheless. I don't care enough about it to
turn it into some sort of "civil disobedience" thing, nor to bother lobbying
to have the law changed.

> Hypocrite . . . Not to mention completely ignorant of the law governing
> these matters.

"Hypocrite"? Again with that word. You don't seem to really understand
what it means.

Pete

[Newps]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Pete, this was national news back in the eighties! Where were you, man?
>
>
> I was here, and recall that the decision allowed time-shifting, but not
> archiving. As I've already stated.

There is/was no such distinction.

[Rob Perkins]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

>Well, from a practical point of view, there are no TV police.

In the US, maybe. Elsewhere, where there is a tax on television
receivers, there really *is* a TV Police.

Rob

[Gary Drescher]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> news:%bfSb.51938$U%5.284839@attbi_s03...
> > There is nothing illegal about me recording music for my personal use
> > from the radio. Same goes for TV.
>
> If you save the recording, there is. You have the right to time-shift.
You
> do not have the right to archive (which is what's being discussed here).

Are you claiming, then, that it is legal to record what's on the radio or
TV, but it is a crime to fail to erase the recording sometime later?

[Peter Duniho]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:nqESb.190397$xy6.990857@attbi_s02...
> There is/was no such distinction.

As I said, if that's true, it should be easy enough for you to provide a
citation. Please feel free to do so any time you'd like to actually back up
your statement.

[Peter Duniho]

"Rob Perkins" > wrote in message
...
> In the US, maybe. Elsewhere, where there is a tax on television
> receivers, there really *is* a TV Police.

Uck. I guess for that matter, it's only a matter of time before we DO have
the TV Police, the way things are going in this country.

[Newps]

Rob Perkins wrote:

> In the US, maybe. Elsewhere, where there is a tax on television
> receivers, there really *is* a TV Police.

You mean you have a tax on TV's other than the normal sales taxes?
Would this be a yearly deal?

[Newps]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> news:nqESb.190397$xy6.990857@attbi_s02...
>
>>There is/was no such distinction.
>
>
> As I said, if that's true, it should be easy enough for you to provide a
> citation. Please feel free to do so any time you'd like to actually back up
> your statement.

None needed, you can't prove a negative. To say that I can tape
something for a later viewing but there is a drop dead legal/illegal
point is stupid.

[Peter Duniho]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:TSFSb.150617$nt4.701280@attbi_s51...
> None needed, you can't prove a negative.

You're right, you can't prove a negative. Which would be relevant if it
weren't for the fact that your side of this debate is the positive. Copying
of copyrighted works is illegal unless otherwise allowed; that's the whole
point of a copyright.

There would have to be an explicit allowance for the copying and archival of
copyrighted works. If you can't provide a citation for such an allowance,
you have no support for your claim.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:D1FSb.147353$sv6.821100@attbi_s52...
> Are you claiming, then, that it is legal to record what's on the radio or
> TV, but it is a crime to fail to erase the recording sometime later?

That's my understanding of the situation, yes. I'm only aware of a specific
allowance for the purpose of watching or listening to something at a time
other than when it was broadcast. I'm not aware of any specific allowance
for the purpose of owning a copy of copyrighted material long term.

It should not be all that surprising to anyone that the mass media companies
have set up copyright law this way (and make no mistake, it's the mass media
companies who have control over copyright law in this country). After all,
if you're allowed to tape Terminator when it's shown on the ABC Sunday Night
Movie and keep the copy indefinitely for repeated viewings, that would cut
into the retail market of the same movie. (Or, at least, that's how the
mass media companies' reasoning goes...I don't necessarily agree with that
analysis, but it's the philosophy they take time and time again). If they'd
had their way, you wouldn't even be allowed to time-shift.

I'm not aware of any individual ever having been prosecuted under that
aspect of the law, nor any aspect of copyright law for "small-time" copying
(taping music for friends, copying movies from their cable TV signal, etc.)
but that in no way means that the law doesn't allow that sort of thing.

Pete

[Jim Fisher]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> There would have to be an explicit allowance for the copying and archival
of
> copyrighted works. If you can't provide a citation for such an allowance,
> you have no support for your claim.

It's called "space shifting."

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is99/RioSpaceShifter.htm

Summary: You can record to your heart's content anything obtained legally
and view/listen to that program any time you wish.

It does not directly address the legality of downloading music from file
sharing services.

--
Jim Fisher

[Robert Moore]

"Jim Fisher" wrote

> It's called "space shifting."
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is99/RioSpaceShifter.htm

Very interesting ruling, Jim, particularly the comments
toward the end of the article.

Bob Moore

[Newps]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> news:TSFSb.150617$nt4.701280@attbi_s51...
>
>>None needed, you can't prove a negative.

> There would have to be an explicit allowance for the copying and archival of
> copyrighted works. If you can't provide a citation for such an allowance,
> you have no support for your claim.

The citation has been provided, it's the Betamax case. I can copy
anything legally obtained, as many copies as I want by the way, and keep
them for future viewing. Not "future viewing not to exceed XX days from
the broadcast" but at any future date. Once the material is in my
possesion it's mine. I am free to do whatever I want with it for my own
personal use.

[Jim Fisher]

"Robert Moore" > wrote in message
. 6...
> "Jim Fisher" wrote
>
> > It's called "space shifting."
> > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is99/RioSpaceShifter.htm
>
> Very interesting ruling, Jim, particularly the comments
> toward the end of the article.

Ahh, you mean the part that says ""The mere fact that a copy is taken from
an unauthorized source" does not negate fair use."

Yeah, I found that interesting as well.
--
Jim Fisher

[Jim Fisher]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> You are, however, still a thief in most people's eyes, even if not your
own.

Well, in your eyes, perhaps, which means precisely zip in my eyes. The law
damn sure doesn't see it that way.

You asked for citations supporting the fact that making copies and even
downloading music from "illegal" sources (which aren't illegal . . . yet)
for personal use is frowned upon only by the RIAA and you.

Those citations have rather embarrassingly negated your entire premise and
illuminated your profound ignorance of the law.

I hate it when that happens, don't you?

--
Jim "Arrr Matey" Fisher

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...
> It's called "space shifting."
>
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is99/RioSpaceShifter.htm

No, it's not. The ruling you refer to simply says that if you already have
a legal license for the copy, then you may transfer the work to something
like an MP3 player. You still need the legal license in the first place,
and the ruling does not address the question of how one obtains that legal
license.

Try again.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:2tPSb.195408$xy6.1007007@attbi_s02...
> The citation has been provided, it's the Betamax case.

That's not a citation. That's a "I'm under the misimpression that some
well-known legal case supports my statements".

Please feel free to actually cite the text within the judgment that you
think supports your claims.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
> So what about TiVo...legal, or illegal?

Legal, assuming you use it simply for time-shifting. It's just like a VCR
as far as the copyright law is concerned.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...
> Well, in your eyes, perhaps, which means precisely zip in my eyes. The
law
> damn sure doesn't see it that way.

The law certainly does see it that way.

> You asked for citations supporting the fact that making copies and even
> downloading music from "illegal" sources (which aren't illegal . . . yet)
> for personal use is frowned upon only by the RIAA and you.

I did not. The citations I asked for were with respect to the question of
copying music from the radio. Nothing more, nothing less. They have
nothing to do with your use of file sharing software to violate copyright
law.

> Those citations have rather embarrassingly negated your entire premise and
> illuminated your profound ignorance of the law.

There have been no such citations, not with respect to copying music from
the radio, nor with respect to downloading music from the Internet. They
have not negated anything about my premise, never mind come close to
negating the entire premise. Nor have they revealed any ignorance on my
part of the law.

> I hate it when that happens, don't you?

I wouldn't know. Tell me about it.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
> TiVo has a "Save To VCR" function that allows you to save anything that
> you have recorded to VCR. That would seem to go beyond time-shifting.
> Does that make saving to VCR from Tivo an illegal act?

Again, it depends on why you are saving to the VCR. Fair use, for example,
allows (among other things) copying of limited content, maintained for
limited periods of time, for educational purposes. There's nothing in the
law that requires you to use the Tivo to play back things copied under the
fair use laws.

Again, just because it is possible to break the law using functionality
provided in the product, that does not make the functionality inherently
illegal. Nor does the presence of that functionality provide any guidance
whatsoever with respect to what infringing and noninfringing uses are.

Pete

[Paul Sengupta]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:IQFSb.147402$5V2.789765@attbi_s53...
>
> Rob Perkins wrote:
>
> > In the US, maybe. Elsewhere, where there is a tax on television
> > receivers, there really *is* a TV Police.
>
> You mean you have a tax on TV's other than the normal sales taxes?
> Would this be a yearly deal?

Yes.

http://www.tv-l.co.uk/index_frameset.html

It funds the BBC and the terrestrial transmitter network. It's
widely acknowledged to be responsible for the prevention of
"dumbing down" TV to er, how can I put this...US levels of
catering for the lowest common denominator (there are no
commercials on BBC 1 and 2 and on BBC radio).

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> If they'd
> had their way, you wouldn't even be allowed to time-shift.

Here in the UK, Sky TV put macrovision encoding on their pay-per-view
films. Thus you can't even record them for time shifting. They don't have it
on their "ordinary" film channels to my knowledge.

Paul