Results 61 to 75 of 155
- 01-14-2005, 12:00 PM #61Jack ZwickGuest
Re: John's half a story
In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan 2005
> 06:12:34 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> >For personal, private use, no one is likely to complain.
> >>
> >> Because it's not unlawful. Period.
> >
> >John Navas is now telling us, and has been for several days, that he's a
> >lawyer.
> >
> >John Navas is now spouting legal opinion.
>
> Nope. What part of this don't you understand? "Caveat: I am not a lawyer,
> and this is not legal advice -- consult your own attorney."
>
> >John, you do know that it's illegal to practice law without a license,
> >right?
>
> Yep. And I'm not. I'm simply relying on authoritative sources; e.g.;
>
> COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976, AS AMENDED
>
> CHAPTER 10. DIGITAL AUDIO RECORDING DEVICES AND MEDIA
>
> SUBCHAPTER D. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN INFRINGEMENT ACTIONS,
> REMEDIES, AND ARBITRATION
>
> Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
>
> No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of
> copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a
> digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an
> analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on
> the NONCOMMERCIAL USE BY A CONSUMER OF SUCH A DEVICE OR MEDIUM FOR
> MAKING DIGITAL MUSICAL RECORDINGS OR ANALOG MUSICAL RECORDINGS.
> [emphasis added]
>
> Case closed.
But thats only part of what Navas did. You also listed in this newsgroup
the URL for ANYONE to download it, so it wasn't use by "a consumer".
And when this was pointed out to you, you quietly took it down off the
website.
› See More: John's favorite ringtones
- 01-14-2005, 12:15 PM #62Jack ZwickGuest
Re: John's favorite ringtones
In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan
> 2005 13:10:41 GMT, Jack "FUDMEISTER" Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Sven" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> This is getting boring...
> >>
> >> John says it's ok, others say it isn't...
> >>
> >> Sue eachother, but do it off-list.
> >
> >John said one thing, did another.
> >
> >I think he's still upset at being fired by Tech-TV two years ago.
>
> LOL! Yet another Zwick fantasy.
Nice try, you were fired in March of 2003.
- 01-14-2005, 12:15 PM #63Jack ZwickGuest
Re: John's favorite ringtones
In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan
> 2005 12:25:07 GMT, Jack "FUDMEISTER" Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > >For personal, private use, no one is likely to complain.
> >> >
> >> > Because it's not unlawful. Period.
> >>
> >> John Navas is now telling us, and has been for several days, that he's a
> >> lawyer.
> >>
> >> John Navas is now spouting legal opinion.
> >>
> >> John, you do know that it's illegal to practice law without a license,
> >> right?
> >
> >For personal private use **IF** he owns legal copies of all the music in
> >question its OK,
>
> Private use is OK no matter what the source. Read the law I just posted to
> this thread.
>
> >posting them on the Internet is a different matter,
>
> Indeed -- it's Fair Use, a different exception.
>
> >and
> >announcing that fact on USENET is worse,
>
> Actually makes no difference.
>
> >which apparently Navas realized
> >and then took them down. Since he had zero web pages up on worldnet, he
> >didnt take them down to free up web space as he claimed.
>
> I actually have a huge amount material on Worldnet, both private and public,
> as anyone with any clue about the Internet can easily determine. (What does
> that make you? Do you enjoy making yourself look solly? That particular
> posting was simply temporary.
Easy to say AFTER the fact.
- 01-14-2005, 12:15 PM #64Guest
Re: John's favorite ringtones
John wrote:
> Sound clips of comparable duration and much higher quality are freely
> available from legitimate sources (e.g., iTunes).
Are you unware of how the iTunes music store works, or are you just
hoping nobody's going to call you out on this?
You can not store the free 30 second clips from iTunes merely listen to
them. The full tracks of course cost $1 and contain embedded DRM so you
can't share them.
Even if that weren't the case, however, there is at least two other
important differences:
1. The copyright holder can stop this whenever they want. In other
words, it's sort of like a publisher handing out some free copies of a
book - giving out as many copies as they want to whomever they want is
not the same as other people giving out copies.
2. More importantly, the "listen to 30 seconds" button is right next to
the "buy me" button. It's clearly there to give you a preview before
purchase. Giving away something of value in a manner that encourages
paying money to buy something else is very reasonable.
I know that physical anlogies to copyright rarely hold, but one that
comes into mind is stealing a box of free handouts on the way to a
supermarket. You could argue that the supermarket was going to give
them out for free, and you're just doing the same, but they'd of course
argue that getting people in the store was their purpose, and that you
did harm them.
Encouraging people to go to a particular web site for the free
downloads is a commercial benefit that companies can get - not
everything is an exchange of money.
- 01-14-2005, 12:45 PM #65Guest
Re: John's favorite ringtones
John wrote:
> the Betamax case, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court
> ruling that home recording for personal use is protected
> under the doctrine of fair use.
If you read (reread?) Betamax, I think you'll find it's a lot less
expansive than you think. There was no blanket ruling that "home
recording for personal use [was] protected." Far from it. The ruling
held that recording from for a library of movies, and even skipping
commercials, were _infringing_ uses.
The _important_ part of the ruling was that the mix of infringing and
non-infringing uses were enough to make the device legal.
Also, you mention the "personal recording can't be prosecuted" thing in
another post. A few points:
1. "An action can not be brought" is not the same as legality. Hair
splitting or not, it doesn't legalize it.
2. The No Electronic Theft act severely evicerates those provisions.
3. If I recall correctly, teh AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act) was the
source of those provisions. It has been argued - but not litigated -
that those provisions may only apply when using an AHRA compliant
device, such as a SCMS compliant audio device.
"The Betamax was used for four principal purposes: time shifting (for
recording a television program for replay at another time), library
building, avoiding commercials, and playing home movies. The Supreme
Court held that time shifting was a non-infringing use, and that
avoiding commercials and library building were infringing uses. In
Sony, the court found that video recorders were being used for a
mixture of infringing and non-infringing uses. Sony could not "demix"
those uses, because once the recorders were sold, customers, not Sony,
controlled the use of the device."
http://www.rivkinradler.com/rivkinra...08rubell.shtml
- 01-14-2005, 01:15 PM #66John NavasGuest
Re: John's favorite ringtones
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan
2005 18:02:22 GMT, Jack "FUDMEISTER" Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan
>> 2005 12:25:07 GMT, Jack "FUDMEISTER" Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >which apparently Navas realized
>> >and then took them down. Since he had zero web pages up on worldnet, he
>> >didnt take them down to free up web space as he claimed.
>>
>> I actually have a huge amount material on Worldnet, both private and public,
>> as anyone with any clue about the Internet can easily determine. (What does
>> that make you? Do you enjoy making yourself look solly? That particular
>> posting was simply temporary.
>
>Easy to say AFTER the fact.
The egg is still on your face.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." [Alexander Pope]
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." [Mark Twain]
- 01-14-2005, 01:15 PM #67John NavasGuest
Re: John's favorite ringtones
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:28:17 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
This was the claim by Jack "FUDMEISTER" Zwick:
>> >> >> >For personal, private use, no one is likely to complain.
This was my response:
>> >> >> Because it's not unlawful. Period.
That was disputed by Jack "FUDMEISTER" Zwick.
This was my proof for my response:
>> >> COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976, AS AMENDED
>> >>
>> >> CHAPTER 10. DIGITAL AUDIO RECORDING DEVICES AND MEDIA
>> >>
>> >> SUBCHAPTER D. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN INFRINGEMENT ACTIONS,
>> >> REMEDIES, AND ARBITRATION
>> >>
>> >> Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
This was my reference to that narrow issue:
>> I didn't do that. Read more carefully.
>Actually, I did read just read a little more carefully- this entire scetion
>of the code has absolutely no bearing on anything that is being disputed in
>this thread. Nobody has calimed anywhere in this thread that you didn't
>have the right to record those ringtones for your own private use, which is
>all that is mentioned above. So I guess I'm a little confused as to why you
>would feel the need to quote sections fo the code that nobody is disputing.
As I wrote, read more carefully.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
- 01-14-2005, 01:15 PM #68John NavasGuest
Re: John's favorite ringtones
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on 14 Jan 2005
10:01:50 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>John wrote:
>> Sound clips of comparable duration and much higher quality are freely
>> available from legitimate sources (e.g., iTunes).
>
>Are you unware of how the iTunes music store works, ...
Yes. Likewise other comparable services.
>You can not store the free 30 second clips from iTunes merely listen to
>them.
Of course you can. Are you unaware of what computers can do?
>The full tracks of course cost $1
My reference was to the free previews.
>and contain embedded DRM so you
>can't share them.
Actually you can, even without a crack, simply by burning them to CD.
>Even if that weren't the case, however, there is at least two other
>important differences:
>1. The copyright holder can stop this whenever they want. In other
>words, it's sort of like a publisher handing out some free copies of a
>book - giving out as many copies as they want to whomever they want is
>not the same as other people giving out copies.
Not really -- that would undoubtedly be the end of online music sales.
>2. More importantly, the "listen to 30 seconds" button is right next to
>the "buy me" button. It's clearly there to give you a preview before
>purchase. Giving away something of value in a manner that encourages
>paying money to buy something else is very reasonable.
The reason is irrelevant -- it exists, and there is no obligation whatsoever
to buy.
>Encouraging people to go to a particular web site for the free
>downloads is a commercial benefit that companies can get - not
>everything is an exchange of money.
People don't go to a website. Are you unware [sic] of how the iTunes music
store works? But it's irrelevant in any event -- the fact that it's free is
all that's needed to obviate test #4.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 01-14-2005, 01:15 PM #69John NavasGuest
Re: John's favorite ringtones
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan
2005 18:01:44 GMT, Jack "FUDMEISTER" Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan
>> 2005 13:10:41 GMT, Jack "FUDMEISTER" Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >John said one thing, did another.
>> >
>> >I think he's still upset at being fired by Tech-TV two years ago.
>>
>> LOL! Yet another Zwick fantasy.
>
>Nice try, you were fired in March of 2003.
Utter nonsense. Which is why you have no proof.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." [Alexander Pope]
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." [Mark Twain]
- 01-14-2005, 01:30 PM #70Scott StephensonGuest
Re: John's favorite ringtones
"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan 2005
10:28:17 -0700,
> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> This was the claim by Jack "FUDMEISTER" Zwick:
>
> >> >> >> >For personal, private use, no one is likely to complain.
>
> This was my response:
>
> >> >> >> Because it's not unlawful. Period.
>
> That was disputed by Jack "FUDMEISTER" Zwick.
>
> This was my proof for my response:
>
> >> >> COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976, AS AMENDED
John- I looked at all of Zippy's post in this thread, and I don't see any
reference to recording for your own personal use being at issue.
- 01-14-2005, 01:30 PM #71John NavasGuest
Re: John's favorite ringtones
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on 14 Jan 2005
10:35:06 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>John wrote:
>> the Betamax case, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court
>> ruling that home recording for personal use is protected
>> under the doctrine of fair use.
>
>If you read (reread?) Betamax, I think you'll find it's a lot less
>expansive than you think. There was no blanket ruling that "home
>recording for personal use [was] protected." Far from it. The ruling
>held that recording from for a library of movies, and even skipping
>commercials, were _infringing_ uses.
Irrelevant to my point.
>The _important_ part of the ruling was that the mix of infringing and
>non-infringing uses were enough to make the device legal.
>
>Also, you mention the "personal recording can't be prosecuted" thing in
>another post. A few points:
>1. "An action can not be brought" is not the same as legality. Hair
>splitting or not, it doesn't legalize it.
I disagree.
>2. The No Electronic Theft act severely evicerates those provisions.
I disagree.
>3. If I recall correctly, teh AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act) was the
>source of those provisions. It has been argued - but not litigated -
>that those provisions may only apply when using an AHRA compliant
>device, such as a SCMS compliant audio device.
1. Speculation isn't relevant.
2. That's not how the law reads.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 01-14-2005, 01:30 PM #72Scott StephensonGuest
Re: John's favorite ringtones
"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on 14 Jan 2005
> 10:01:50 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >John wrote:
> >> Sound clips of comparable duration and much higher quality are freely
> >> available from legitimate sources (e.g., iTunes).
> >
> >Are you unware of how the iTunes music store works, ...
>
> Yes. Likewise other comparable services.
>
> >You can not store the free 30 second clips from iTunes merely listen to
> >them.
>
> Of course you can. Are you unaware of what computers can do?
>
> >The full tracks of course cost $1
>
> My reference was to the free previews.
>
> >and contain embedded DRM so you
> >can't share them.
>
> Actually you can, even without a crack, simply by burning them to CD.
>
> >Even if that weren't the case, however, there is at least two other
> >important differences:
> >1. The copyright holder can stop this whenever they want. In other
> >words, it's sort of like a publisher handing out some free copies of a
> >book - giving out as many copies as they want to whomever they want is
> >not the same as other people giving out copies.
>
> Not really -- that would undoubtedly be the end of online music sales.
>
> >2. More importantly, the "listen to 30 seconds" button is right next to
> >the "buy me" button. It's clearly there to give you a preview before
> >purchase. Giving away something of value in a manner that encourages
> >paying money to buy something else is very reasonable.
>
> The reason is irrelevant -- it exists, and there is no obligation
whatsoever
> to buy.
>
> >Encouraging people to go to a particular web site for the free
> >downloads is a commercial benefit that companies can get - not
> >everything is an exchange of money.
>
> People don't go to a website. Are you unware [sic] of how the iTunes
music
> store works? But it's irrelevant in any event -- the fact that it's free
is
> all that's needed to obviate test #4.
No- you are not taking many things into consideration in saying that. The
most important of which is that the artist and songwriter are actually
getting paid by iTunes, and iTunes has gone through the process of getting
copyright owner approval to use the material. These are steps that you did
not take. That is the differnece you claim is not there.
- 01-14-2005, 01:30 PM #73John NavasGuest
Re: John's half a story
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan
2005 17:57:53 GMT, Jack "CHICKEN LITTLE" Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan 2005
>> 06:12:34 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >For personal, private use, no one is likely to complain.
>> >>
>> >> Because it's not unlawful. Period.
>> COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976, AS AMENDED
>>
>> CHAPTER 10. DIGITAL AUDIO RECORDING DEVICES AND MEDIA
>>
>> SUBCHAPTER D. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN INFRINGEMENT ACTIONS,
>> REMEDIES, AND ARBITRATION
>>
>> Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
>>
>> No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of
>> copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a
>> digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an
>> analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on
>> the NONCOMMERCIAL USE BY A CONSUMER OF SUCH A DEVICE OR MEDIUM FOR
>> MAKING DIGITAL MUSICAL RECORDINGS OR ANALOG MUSICAL RECORDINGS.
>> [emphasis added]
>>
>> Case closed.
>
>But thats only part of what Navas did. You also listed in this newsgroup
>the URL for ANYONE to download it, so it wasn't use by "a consumer".
Irrelvant. The citation above was stimply to disprove some of your nonsense:
"For personal, private use, no one is likely to complain. If you own CD's
of ALL the original works, fair use comes into play."
"For personal private use **IF** he owns legal copies of all the music in
question its OK"
That citation shows that:
1. It's not "fair use" -- it's a different part of the law.
2. Owning "legal copies" isn't required.
>And when this was pointed out to you, you quietly took it down off the
>website.
Nope. Took it down when it was no longer of interest. Put it back up to
prove you wrong (again).
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." [Alexander Pope]
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." [Mark Twain]
- 01-14-2005, 01:45 PM #74John NavasGuest
Re: John's favorite ringtones
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:18:20 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan 2005
>10:28:17 -0700,
>> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>>
>> This was the claim by Jack "FUDMEISTER" Zwick:
>>
>> >> >> >> >For personal, private use, no one is likely to complain.
>>
>> This was my response:
>>
>> >> >> >> Because it's not unlawful. Period.
>>
>> That was disputed by Jack "FUDMEISTER" Zwick.
>>
>> This was my proof for my response:
>>
>> >> >> COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976, AS AMENDED
>
>John- I looked at all of Zippy's post in this thread, and I don't see any
>reference to recording for your own personal use being at issue.
[sigh] One more time: What he wrote:
"For personal, private use, no one is likely to complain. If you own CD's
of ALL the original works, fair use comes into play."
"For personal private use **IF** he owns legal copies of all the music in
question its OK"
My citation showed that:
1. It's not "fair use" -- it's a different part of the law.
2. Owning "legal copies" isn't required.
Are we now at least done with this narrow issue?
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 01-14-2005, 01:45 PM #75John NavasGuest
Re: John's favorite ringtones
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:22:24 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>But it's irrelevant in any event -- the fact that [30 sec clips are] free
>is all that's needed to obviate test #4.
>
>No- you are not taking many things into consideration in saying that. The
>most important of which is that the artist and songwriter are actually
>getting paid by iTunes, and iTunes has gone through the process of getting
>copyright owner approval to use the material. These are steps that you did
>not take. That is the differnece you claim is not there.
1. They aren't getting paid for free 30 sec clips -- only for complete song
purchases.
2. It matters not what steps I did or didn't go through -- what matters is
simply the ready availability of the free 30 sec clips.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
Similar Threads
- RingTones
- Chit Chat
- RingTones
- RingTones
- alt.cellular.verizon
Recover scammed cryptocurrency
in Samsung