[Gerard]

Originally Posted by Pony99CA

You missed one point. Record company sends lawyers to sue you for copyright violation because they have your confession in writing.

My philosophy on P2P is still the same. Go ahead and steal the music if you want, but don't try to rationalize it and don't put in writing what you've done.

Rationalization has nothing to do with my arguments. Of course this comment may not be directly related to mine... but the way you've been somewhat structured in your multiple responses, keeping them quite separate, makes it seem as though it is. I don't want to steal music. I don't steal music. If I can possibly find a purchasable album I want to have in a shop or online, I buy it. Same goes for my teenage stepdaughter, whose ethics in this area are rather strikingly clear; she grew up the daughter of a performing musician, surrounded by performing musicians, and understands that artists need to eat. Same for me. My clients work bloody hard to scrape usually very meager incomes form the gigs they're able to find, teaching and working day jobs to make ends meet.

I respect musicians' efforts far more deeply than the 'average' recorded music consumer, not in small part owing to the fact that without musicians, I would have zero income myself. I'm a violinmaker, specialized primarily (though not exclusively) in repairs and setups of doublebasses. Without bassists, I'd have to go back to my father's business of construction, and I do have the skills to do rather well there... but it's not what I want to do. I could also be a bike mechanic or a welder or machinist or a baker or a host of other things, as my working life has been rather varied and I tend to do a good job wherever I work. Same could be said for a log of my clients. But as with me, they would prefer to make their livings from their craft, music in their case. And I support them in this, buying music which interests me, and (when fatherhood allows) going out to hear them performing.

As for your specific admonition - that putting your intentions in writing somehow makes you vulnerable... no. Did I say, for instance, that when sending a postal money order (the financial instrument mentioned, if you recall) that people should include their actual name or actual location? A postal money order is unique in that it a) can be purchased with cash, without presenting identification, and so cannot be traced to the sender, and b) is 'as good as' cash at any financial institution. Further, one can use anonymous means in writing and sending the note to go with the money order, explaining the reason for the payment and even the specific album in question, without getting the RIAA any closer to the sender than the city of origin. Barring fingerprinting or other forensic evidence, which it's highly unlikely the RIAA is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per case pursuing, there's just no way this is admissible in any court. The RIAA's cases are pathetically cobbled together at best anyway, relying almost entirely on fear to resolve them out of court. Evidence really doesn't much enter into it.

But of course anyone is welcome to continue quaking in fear of the MegaCorp. I've been recommending for years in discussion forums that people just outright avoid any and all DRM-protected content from these companies. I was deeply shocked to find, once, that a favourite band's label (which I will not here name, as they have since reversed this policy and now openly promote sharing of tracks as a means of promotion of their artists) had used an embedded, stealth-installed player on a CD so that it could not be ripped at better than 56kbps. Of course my immediate reaction was to spend several hours searching for a way to crack this restriction, as I'd no intention of listening to the CD at all; I wanted a 320kbps rip to MP3 for my PPC, where I listened to music generally. Solution was eventually found, CD ripped, customer no longer quite so angry. Since then I have been very careful to search the packaging of any CD for mention of any such DRM nonsense. If I am paying for an album, I want to listen to that album, on my terms. What business is it of the publishers to choose on what device or at what level of quality I do so?

Someone earlier in this thread mentioned P2P files being of generally low quality. For the limited use I have made of such services, in cases where availability of physical media simply wasn't an option, my experience says otherwise. Sure, there is the odd horrid rip. But generally speaking, it seems audiophile quality of darn near is the rule. Perhaps this low-quality thing is more applicable in cases with pop music? Haven't really tried to find any of that, so couldn't say. Old classical recordings for the most part, stuff long out of print. The odd ancient jazz album, like some tasty Coltrane or Brubeck no longer issued, though I have it on poppy old vinyl. There, it's unusual to find any single track less than 40MB of data, with albums measuring in the many hundreds of megabytes to handle every possible nuance. That's when I am very grateful for the resource P2P networking provides, and of course gladly share more than my bandwidth share.

So the RIAA can bite me. I neither steal their stuff nor promote such activities. I am merely advocating for pushing them to wake up and treat their customers with some respect. Perhaps if they do, they might find it in their hearts to offer a little of the same to their artists... nah, that's not likely.

[Gerard]

Originally Posted by Pony99CA

You missed one point. Record company sends lawyers to sue you for copyright violation because they have your confession in writing.

My philosophy on P2P is still the same. Go ahead and steal the music if you want, but don't try to rationalize it and don't put in writing what you've done.

Rationalization has nothing to do with my arguments. Of course this comment may not be directly related to mine... but the way you've been somewhat structured in your multiple responses, keeping them quite separate, makes it seem as though it is. I don't want to steal music. I don't steal music. If I can possibly find a purchasable album I want to have in a shop or online, I buy it. Same goes for my teenage stepdaughter, whose ethics in this area are rather strikingly clear; she grew up the daughter of a performing musician, surrounded by performing musicians, and understands that artists need to eat. Same for me. My clients work bloody hard to scrape usually very meager incomes form the gigs they're able to find, teaching and working day jobs to make ends meet.

I respect musicians' efforts far more deeply than the 'average' recorded music consumer, not in small part owing to the fact that without musicians, I would have zero income myself. I'm a violinmaker, specialized primarily (though not exclusively) in repairs and setups of doublebasses. Without bassists, I'd have to go back to my father's business of construction, and I do have the skills to do rather well there... but it's not what I want to do. I could also be a bike mechanic or a welder or machinist or a baker or a host of other things, as my working life has been rather varied and I tend to do a good job wherever I work. Same could be said for a log of my clients. But as with me, they would prefer to make their livings from their craft, music in their case. And I support them in this, buying music which interests me, and (when fatherhood allows) going out to hear them performing.

As for your specific admonition - that putting your intentions in writing somehow makes you vulnerable... no. Did I say, for instance, that when sending a postal money order (the financial instrument mentioned, if you recall) that people should include their actual name or actual location? A postal money order is unique in that it a) can be purchased with cash, without presenting identification, and so cannot be traced to the sender, and b) is 'as good as' cash at any financial institution. Further, one can use anonymous means in writing and sending the note to go with the money order, explaining the reason for the payment and even the specific album in question, without getting the RIAA any closer to the sender than the city of origin. Barring fingerprinting or other forensic evidence, which it's highly unlikely the RIAA is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per case pursuing, there's just no way this is admissible in any court. The RIAA's cases are pathetically cobbled together at best anyway, relying almost entirely on fear to resolve them out of court. Evidence really doesn't much enter into it.

But of course anyone is welcome to continue quaking in fear of the MegaCorp. I've been recommending for years in discussion forums that people just outright avoid any and all DRM-protected content from these companies. I was deeply shocked to find, once, that a favourite band's label (which I will not here name, as they have since reversed this policy and now openly promote sharing of tracks as a means of promotion of their artists) had used an embedded, stealth-installed player on a CD so that it could not be ripped at better than 56kbps. Of course my immediate reaction was to spend several hours searching for a way to crack this restriction, as I'd no intention of listening to the CD at all; I wanted a 320kbps rip to MP3 for my PPC, where I listened to music generally. Solution was eventually found, CD ripped, customer no longer quite so angry. Since then I have been very careful to search the packaging of any CD for mention of any such DRM nonsense. If I am paying for an album, I want to listen to that album, on my terms. What business is it of the publishers to choose on what device or at what level of quality I do so?

Someone earlier in this thread mentioned P2P files being of generally low quality. For the limited use I have made of such services, in cases where availability of physical media simply wasn't an option, my experience says otherwise. Sure, there is the odd horrid rip. But generally speaking, it seems audiophile quality of darn near is the rule. Perhaps this low-quality thing is more applicable in cases with pop music? Haven't really tried to find any of that, so couldn't say. Old classical recordings for the most part, stuff long out of print. The odd ancient jazz album, like some tasty Coltrane or Brubeck no longer issued, though I have it on poppy old vinyl. There, it's unusual to find any single track less than 40MB of data, with albums measuring in the many hundreds of megabytes to handle every possible nuance. That's when I am very grateful for the resource P2P networking provides, and of course gladly share more than my bandwidth share.

So the RIAA can bite me. I neither steal their stuff nor promote such activities. I am merely advocating for pushing them to wake up and treat their customers with some respect. Perhaps if they do, they might find it in their hearts to offer a little of the same to their artists... nah, that's not likely.

[frankenbike]

Originally Posted by Pony99CA

Besides what Ed and Janak said about the general technical expertise of the general population, I find this attitude a bit repugnant.

Should mechanics be able to rip people off who don't know enough about the inner workings of their cars? Is it OK to take advantage of people "dumber" than you because they aren't smart enough to catch on? Is it OK for me to be resourceful, use Google to find out how to bump a lock, then go steal from your house?

Steve

Given that the limit of my statement was refusing to offer sympathy while you're suggesting an entire program of taking advantage of the ignorant, even going as far as suggesting this is equivalent to breaking into someone's house, I really don't accept your criticism of my attitude as repugnant.

Though I do have to admire your potential for evil. You show promise.

For those who go the extra mile to understand a little bit more about the world around them, there are and should be benefits to acquisition of knowledge. There are all sorts of things that smarter people than I get as benefits. Better jobs, investments with better returns or non-catastrophic losses, etc.

Do those who are born beautiful feel sorry for those who weren't born beautiful. Most don't, some do. Those that do feel sorry about it aren't going to socialize with those objects of sympathy.

Do people who went to good schools and were born rich sympathize enough with people who are homeless enough to keep the manufacturing in their companies domestic so those people can get jobs if they want them? OK, that's just crazy talk.

I've been in a job interview, where I was evaluated on my choice of shoes, for a non-footwear related job I didn't get the job because my shoes said I wasn't the right kind of person for the job (seriously, that's what I was told).

So yeah, I'm going to feel a little bit arrogant about the inherent superiority of knowing something about technology that lets you improvise and save your "investment".

And if you can't know something yourself, be nice to a nerd. Buy them a beer. Or a sandwich. If you're a girl, go out with a nerd. In this brutal world of technological ripoffs, befriending a nerd is like money in the bank.

I have my circle of friends and family I have to offer technical support and advice to. Family I require meals from, friends I require beer or Scotch. For my wife, it's part of my "manly duties". For my sister in law, it's part of getting her to take care of our cats when we leave for a weekend or longer. In this modern world, no one is more than two degrees of separation from a nerd who can at least offer them unsolicited technical advice.

Those who are nerd haters and anti-intellectuals, deserve EVERYTHING that happens to them.

--
FB
onlymidlevelnerd

[Rocco Augusto]

Originally Posted by frankenbike

Though I do have to admire your potential for evil. You show promise.

[Ed Hansberry]

Originally Posted by frankenbike

So yeah, I'm going to feel a little bit arrogant about the inherent superiority of knowing something about technology that lets you improvise and save your "investment".

Warren Buffett is not impressed.

Different people have different talents. Anyone with medical training could say the same thing about our health, that we should all know way more than we currently do, maybe as much as 1% of what they know, and we'd live better lives. They might be right, but I don't get physiology. It just doesn't compute with me.

But I won't for a second look down at any physician with any level of arrogance because they don't have the slightest clue where to begin to look for info on stripping DRM off because their online music service vanished.

[Pony99CA]

Originally Posted by Rocco Augusto

Heck I would say even longer. I usually have a 10-14 hour workday on top of any extra activity things such as contributing here. If I was a Wal-Mart customer I would be SOL since there is no way I would have the time with my current work schedule to go through my albums and burn them all to CD.

So maybe you stop contributing here for a couple of days while you preserve your investment. If you choose to prioritize one over the other, that's not really the company's fault.

However, I have no problem with a company offering more time (and would applaud that). I was just suggesting an absolute minimum to get around things like people being on vacation or who had other commitments. Three months seems like enough time to handle this, even with other distractions. (It's enough for the government to require you to do estimated taxes. )

Originally Posted by Rocco Augusto

What about all the people that have changed email addresses since buying those albums as well? How are they going to be notified?

Well, one way is by watching the news. This story was on our local news, I think, and they were supposedly going to offer a solution (probably ripping, but I didn't see the actual story, just the teaser).

However, as was pointed out, if somebody changed their E-mail address and didn't update people with the new one, what is the company supposed to do? I assume you don't think they should run their DRM servers forever (or until they go out of business), right? I hope even the most ardent anti-DRM people agree that burden would be a bit onerous.

Steve

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by frankenbike

Given that the limit of my statement was refusing to offer sympathy...I have my circle of friends and family I have to offer technical support and advice to. Family I require meals from, friends I require beer or Scotch. For my wife, it's part of my "manly duties". For my sister in law, it's part of getting her to take care of our cats when we leave for a weekend or longer.

That's funny, with my friends and family I give freely of my expertise, because it's the right thing to do - friends and family are supposed to help each other without expectation of repayment. At least that's what I was raised to believe in.

I find your attitude quite cold and lacking in compassion, and I wonder what would happen if you ever needed help from someone and you had nothing to offer them - you'd better hope they weren't from your school of thought. Something to think about.

[Pony99CA]

Originally Posted by Gerard

Rationalization has nothing to do with my arguments. Of course this comment may not be directly related to mine... but the way you've been somewhat structured in your multiple responses, keeping them quite separate, makes it seem as though it is.

It wasn't directed at you (I knew about your instrument repair, et al). Stating my philosophy about P2P just seemed to fit in there.

Originally Posted by Gerard

As for your specific admonition - that putting your intentions in writing somehow makes you vulnerable... no. Did I say, for instance, that when sending a postal money order (the financial instrument mentioned, if you recall) that people should include their actual name or actual location? A postal money order is unique in that it a) can be purchased with cash, without presenting identification, and so cannot be traced to the sender, and b) is 'as good as' cash at any financial institution.

Actually, it's not as good as cash, as I found out when I moved to California. I had cashed in my bank account in Michigan and gotten a money order. When I went to open an account at a bank in Silicon Valley, I was told there would be a hold on my money because money orders can have stop payment orders placed on them, just like checks.

Originally Posted by Gerard

Further, one can use anonymous means in writing and sending the note to go with the money order, explaining the reason for the payment and even the specific album in question, without getting the RIAA any closer to the sender than the city of origin. Barring fingerprinting or other forensic evidence, which it's highly unlikely the RIAA is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per case pursuing, there's just no way this is admissible in any court.

There's DNA off of the envelope, of course. And don't be fooled by thinking the RIAA won't spend thousands of dollars pursuing somebody. How much do you think they pay lawyers to gather evidence or companies to track the IP addresses of uploaders? Legal and technical fees aren't cheap.

Originally Posted by Gerard

If I am paying for an album, I want to listen to that album, on my terms. What business is it of the publishers to choose on what device or at what level of quality I do so?

What business is it of theirs? I think that's obvious given that they're in the business of selling music. Why wouldn't they want to charge you for other formats or better quality? They're a business, not a philanthropic organization.

And of course you want to use the music on your terms. Who doesn't want to use everything on their own terms? However, that doesn't necessarily mean that you have the legal right to. (With music from CDs, which isn't encrypted, I think the legal precedent says that you do. However, with DVDs and DRM-protected songs, which are encrypted, the DMCA says that you don't -- at least in the U.S., which I know doesn't apply to you.)

Originally Posted by Gerard

So the RIAA can bite me. I neither steal their stuff nor promote such activities. I am merely advocating for pushing them to wake up and treat their customers with some respect.

I think you misunderstand who the RIAA's "customers" are. Their customers are the music publishers, not the music purchasers. I suspect their true customers do get treated with respect.

FYI, I think the RIAA is a bunch of bullies, too, but the law gives the copyright owners that ability. Until we get more user-friendly copyright laws, that's what we're stuck with. The correct way to fight it is by passing new laws, not stealing music and rationalizing it away (again, that part does not apply to you).

Steve

[Pony99CA]

Originally Posted by frankenbike

Given that the limit of my statement was refusing to offer sympathy while you're suggesting an entire program of taking advantage of the ignorant, even going as far as suggesting this is equivalent to breaking into someone's house, I really don't accept your criticism of my attitude as repugnant.

Fair enough, so let me rephrase. Would you have no sympathy for the elderly or mentally challenged who got ripped off? Would you have no sympathy for a neighbor whose house got robbed because they didn't know enough to install better locks than those that came with their house?

Originally Posted by frankenbike

For those who go the extra mile to understand a little bit more about the world around them, there are and should be benefits to acquisition of knowledge. There are all sorts of things that smarter people than I get as benefits. Better jobs, investments with better returns or non-catastrophic losses, etc.

Yes, there should be benefits. Your benefit is that you know how to rip a CD and don't need to worry about WalMart's DRM servers going away. That doesn't preclude somebody from sympathizing with others who aren't so knowledgable. As I often say, even the most knowledgable among us are still woefully ignorant about 99% of the world.

Originally Posted by frankenbike

Do those who are born beautiful feel sorry for those who weren't born beautiful. Most don't, some do. Those that do feel sorry about it aren't going to socialize with those objects of sympathy.

Like you rejected my analogy, I'm rejecting this one. Those are intrinsic features that we have no control over. This is a company actively doing something to their customers, not just some accident of chance.

Regardless, some people might feel sympathy for those born less than beautiful. Did you ever watch "The Elephant Man" or similar movies? And some people do feel sympathy for victims of random chance, like tsunami victims.

Originally Posted by frankenbike

Those who are nerd haters and anti-intellectuals, deserve EVERYTHING that happens to them.

There's a big difference between being hateful and anti-intellectual and having differing priorities from you, which I think Ed alluded to.

I agree with Jason, and still find that attitude repugnant. Your mileage obviously varies.

Steve