John's favorite ringtones

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> d[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan 2005
13:14:52 -0700,
> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >
> >> >Some of us might actually know
> >> >what we're talking about in an area that you have no expertise in.
Some of
> >> >us have life experience in this specific area of the law, and some of
us
> >> >have actual post-secondary classroom experience in exactly the subject
at
> >> >hand, taught by copyright lawyers and experts and specific to the use
of
> >> >musical compositions.
> >>
> >> As noted earlier, I have actual litigation experience in copyright, and
have
> >> been qualified as an expert witness. And you?
> >
> >You were never qualified as an expert witness on sound recording
copyrights,
>
> Have you? I'm guessing no. Am I right?

I've never been involved in a situation that would require it. That is not
the end-all expertise you seem to think it is, but something that you feel
the need to share (ego problem?). I have over twenty years of working
experience with musical copyrights, as opposed to your 4 days. And form
your response, we can all gather that I was correct- you are not qualified
as an expert wirtness in sound recording copyrights.

>
> >which puts you on a lesser footing than those of us that have actually
> >studied and used applicable laws as they pertain to the use, recording
and
> >distribution of music. You are the newbie here, not us.
>
> We'll just to agree to disagree.

No WE won't- you got caught in something you have no experience in, and
tried to bully with a limited opinion of the law, not knowing all of the
applicable codes and laws in effect. Your very limited view of a few pieces
of code demonstrates that. The only thing WE need to agree on is that you
are in over your head here.

>
> >Do you find it interesting that nobody reading this group has jumped to
your
> >defense? ...
>
> Nope. The absence of comment is of course meaningless. Regardless, those
few
> still following this long thread are probably doing it mostly for
> entertainment; some may well think I'm doing well enough on my own.

Or they are simply enjoying the fact that you have made a complete fool of
yourself by trying to be an expert in something you have no practical
knowledge of. You can continue to make your false claims of justification-
you are worng as a mtter of law, not opinion.

>
> >I do. ...
>
> Fair enough. Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I believe I used more than two words. Care to put them back into context,
or should we start referring to you as Jack, Jr.?

---

› See More: John's favorite ringtones

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on 14 Jan 2005
12:35:05 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, John Navas wrote:
>> gopi wrote:

>>> 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.
>
>I disagree.

Fair enough.

>And, instead of merely asserting that I am correct, I will
>actually quote and explain myself.
>
>Section 1001 defines terms.
>
>Section 1002 specifies that the (consumer) devices defined in Section 1001
>must contain SCMS, or some other serial copy management system.
>
>Section 1008 specifes that you can not be taken to court for your
>noncommercial use of said devices.
>
>In other words, you're only allowed to get away with non-commercial
>recordings with analog, or with copy-protected digital devices. Since your
>computer doesn't enforce any system approved by the Secretary of Commerce,
>the AHRA does _not_ protect you.

You were doing OK up to that last paragraph, but many would disagree with your
conclusion, including me of course.

>And, just in case you're still not clear on the English language:
>
>"The AHRA was specifically enacted in response to the introduction of
>digital audio tape recorders ("DAT"), but applies in general to all
>"digital audio recording devices." The AHRA requires all such devices
>to employ a Serial Copyright Management System ("SCMS"), or similar
>system, designed to prevent unauthorized copying.6 Manufacturers of
>digital audio recording devices also are required to pay a royalty for
>each unit sold.7 Any device that falls within the definitions set forth
>in the AHRA cannot be the subject of an action for copyright
>infringement."
>
>http://www6.law.com/ny/tech/091399t3.html
>
>Please, John, make at least some attempt to read a law before claiming
>what it says.

Please, gopi (or whoever you are), make at least some attempt to actually post
and cite the law, rather than a particular commentary that you think supports
your point of view. And likewise please acknowledge that there's considerable
difference of opinion.

Regardless, your position would seem to be that: (a) it's OK to hook an AHRA
digital recorder (whatever that is) to the output of a computer, make a
recording, and then transfer that recording to a cell phone; but that (b) it's
not OK to skip the AHRA digital recorder (whatever that is) and just use the
computer, even though the result is exactly the same. With all due respect,
I don't think that would pass the laugh test in a court of law, which is part
of why the debate rages on.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan
2005 20:47:54 GMT, Jack "CHICKEN LITTLE" Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <I%[email protected]>,
> John Navas> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan
>> 2005 17:57:53 GMT, Jack "CHICKEN LITTLE" Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

>> >And when this was pointed out to you, you quietly took it down off the
>> >website.

Total baloney.

>> Nope. Took it down when it was no longer of interest. Put it back up to
>> prove you wrong (again).
>
>Fake excuse invented after the fact.

More baloney.

>You announced in this newsgroup it
>was up, never announced it was coming down.

Irrelevant. And, BTW, it's back up. And without your permission.
Imagine that.

--
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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:48:40 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> As I wrote, the how is irrelevant -- all that matters in the context of test
>> #4 is the ready availability of free 30 sec clips of better quality, which
>> obviates any financial impact.

>No- you are wrong, [SNIP rehash]

And I think you are wrong. Se we'll just have to agree to disagree, because
I'm getting really tired of just rehashing this over and over.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:57:16 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:14:52 -0700,
>> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...

>> >> As noted earlier, I have actual litigation experience in copyright, and have
>> >> been qualified as an expert witness. And you?
>> >
>> >You were never qualified as an expert witness on sound recording copyrights,
>>
>> Have you? I'm guessing no. Am I right?
>
>I've never been involved in a situation that would require it. ...

In other words: I have copyright litigation experience. You don't.

>> We'll just to agree to disagree.
>
>No WE won't-

Yes WE will, whether you like it or not.

>you are worng as a mtter of law, not opinion.

Now you're a court?!

>... or should we start referring to you as Jack, Jr.?

You are of course free to act as childish as you wish.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

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 21:48:40 -0700,
> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> As I wrote, the how is irrelevant -- all that matters in the context of
> >> test
> >> #4 is the ready availability of free 30 sec clips of better quality, which
> >> obviates any financial impact.
>
> >No- you are wrong, [SNIP rehash]

Always snipping what he disagrees with.

>
> And I think you are wrong. Se we'll just have to agree to disagree, because
> I'm getting really tired of just rehashing this over and over.

Getting tired of ignoring the fact that:

1. Yoiu never told us that you owned the CD's to produce the ringtones.

2. Never fessed up that publically posting them is not "fair use",
although you did secretly take them down, and after the fact came up
with lame excuses for doing so.

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 20:47:54 GMT, Jack "CHICKEN LITTLE" Zwick <[email protected]>
> wrote:


Demonstrating I MUST be right because he had to childishly stick in a
name to call me.
>
> >In article <I%[email protected]>,
> > John Navas> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan
> >> 2005 17:57:53 GMT, Jack "CHICKEN LITTLE" Zwick <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >And when this was pointed out to you, you quietly took it down off the
> >> >website.
>
> Total baloney.



But thats what happened.
>
> >> Nope. Took it down when it was no longer of interest. Put it back up to
> >> prove you wrong (again).
> >
> >Fake excuse invented after the fact.
>
> More baloney.

If its back up the reason you took it down wasnt needed webspace,
and that was what was Baloney.



Calling it Baloney doesn't alter history.

>
> >You announced in this newsgroup it
> >was up, never announced it was coming down.
>
> Irrelevant. And, BTW, it's back up. And without your permission.
> Imagine that.

http://j.navas.home.att.net/johns_ringtones.zip

Imagine getting sued.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories...395&ran=113926


======

Meanwhile as usual John snips out the part of previous posts that PROVE
him wrong.

If he owns (never mentioned) ALL the music used to produce the
ringtones, then for personal private use, it may be ok.

Publically posting it for all to share is not OK.

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005, John Navas wrote:
> In <[email protected]> on 14 Jan
2005
> 12:35:05 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>> In other words, you're only allowed to get away with non-commercial
>> recordings with analog, or with copy-protected digital devices.
Since your
>> computer doesn't enforce any system approved by the Secretary of
Commerce,
>> the AHRA does _not_ protect you.
> You were doing OK up to that last paragraph, but many would disagree
with your
> conclusion, including me of course.

That's fine. You're welcome to disagree. Can you find somebody with
credibility who disagrees?

> Please, gopi (or whoever you are), make at least some attempt to
actually post
> and cite the law, rather than a particular commentary that you think
supports
> your point of view. And likewise please acknowledge that there's
considerable
> difference of opinion.

I did post a URL to the law, and a point by point explanation of what
the sections meant. I also posted a link to an article in a law journal
by an attorney supporting my opinion.

A "commentary" by a practicing attorney who's a partner at a law firm,
in the New York Law Journal, seems a quite reasonable source to back up
my opinion. I will acknowledge a considerable difference of opinion on
this clause of the AHRA as soon as I see something published by a
qualified legal professional explaining their reasoning.

You previously asked for legal opinions backing up my claims. Now that
I cite them, you claim it's just "commentary" and somehow irrelevant. A
published lawyer believes I am correct. Who thinks you're right?

John wrote:
> Regardless, your position would seem to be that: (a) it's OK to hook
an AHRA
> digital recorder (whatever that is)

"whatever that is"? You don't know what an AHRA-complianat digital
recorder is? The fundamental purpose of the AHRA was to create such a
class of devices. Every single section of the AHRA talks about that
class of device. If you didn't understand what the definition Section
1001 meant, I can see how you failed to understand the rest of the Act.

Read Section 1001, part 3. That defines a "digital audio recording
device."
Section 1002 says that any "digital audio recording device" must have
SCMS, or some equivalent, approved serial copy "management" (ie:
prevention) system.
Section 1003 says that importers and manufacturers must pay royalties
on such devices.
Section 1008 says nobody can bring an action under copyright law
"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."

Note the term "digital audio recordiing device." Section 1001 _defines_
that term. Any further use in the statute of the phrase "digital audio
recordiing device" is referring to the same device. Such devices _must_
have DRM in them.

Many people simply read section 1008, and never read the entire law,
because, after all, we all know what a "digital audio recordiing
device" is, right? Unfortunately, the law defines the term in a
specific way.

> to the output of a computer, make a
> recording, and then transfer that recording to a cell phone; but that
(b) it's
> not OK to skip the AHRA digital recorder (whatever that is) and just
use the
> computer, even though the result is exactly the same. With all due
respect,
> I don't think that would pass the laugh test in a court of law, which
is part
> of why the debate rages on.

You're only in the clear if _every_ device involved is AHRA-compliant.
The fundamental reason you're in the clear is because:
1. The copyright holders were paid a portion of the cost of your blank
tape and of your recorder.
2. Your recording device was designed to prevent you from making serial
copies, thus stopping anybody you gave the copy to from making
unlimited "serial" copies for their friends without resorting to either
a "commercial" device (poorly defined) or an illegal SCMS circumvention
device (trivial to build.)

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> You're only in the clear if _every_ device involved is AHRA-compliant.
> The fundamental reason you're in the clear is because:
> 1. The copyright holders were paid a portion of the cost of your blank
> tape and of your recorder.
> 2. Your recording device was designed to prevent you from making serial
> copies, thus stopping anybody you gave the copy to from making
> unlimited "serial" copies for their friends without resorting to either
> a "commercial" device (poorly defined) or an illegal SCMS circumvention
> device (trivial to build.)

And of course if none of that was done, and the resulting files are
publicly posted on the Internet. WATCH OUT.

John wrote:
> gopi wrote:
> >1. "An action can not be brought" is not the same as legality. Hair
> >splitting or not, it doesn't legalize it.
> I disagree.

"The House report clarifies that "[t]hese exemptions are complete,
notwithstanding the somewhat indirect phrasing of the section, which is
couched in terms of a prohibition on the bringing of infringement
actions." H.R. 3204, 102nd Cong. (1992). Section 1008 does not judge
whether the underlying conduct is or is not infringement, but merely
provides full protection against the specified types of copyright
infringement actions. See 102 S. Rpt. 294."

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/t...RAhistory.html

If you look at subsection 107 of Title 17, where fair use is codified,
you'll see the text "...is not an infringement of copyright."

See the difference? I do not know the reasoning for the different
phrasing; you'll need to ask a law professor to explain the reason for
the difference. However, both the House and the Senate believe that the
AHRA's section 1008 does not make the acts described non-infringing,
but merely prohibits prosecution.

Statues of limiations are an example where similar phrasing is used.
Theft doesn't become "legal" after the specified period has elapsed, it
merely becomes impossible to prosecute.

John wrote:
> A few of the many available tools (easily found with Google):
> * Anvil Studio
> * Audacity
> * Polyphonic Wizard
> * RazorLAME

None of those programs will capture the digital data stream from iTunes
and write it to disk. Those are all generic audio, MP3, or MIDI
editing/encoding programs.

The DMCA does, in fact, make it illegal to circumvent DRM -
coincidentally, the iTunes previews in question are DRM-encoded. I
don't like the DMCA, but it is the law. It is important to note that
the anti-circumvention rules of the DMCA do _not_ have any fair use
exemptions.

Since the DRM in the iTunes files must be circumvented to put the files
onto a phone, doing that is illegal. Even if it's easy, that's
irrelevant. You have yet to identify a _legal_ way to get these ring
tones.

http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/WOiss...egislation.htm

"Ms. Nisbet pointed out the ways that the current prohibitions
resulting from passage of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act
(DMCA) stifle a library's ability to make fair use of digital
materials, to preserve and archive digital content and to take
advantage fully of the other library exceptions provided by federal
copyright law."

"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
21:57:16 -0700,
> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan 2005
13:14:52 -0700,
> >> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> >> As noted earlier, I have actual litigation experience in copyright,
and have
> >> >> been qualified as an expert witness. And you?
> >> >
> >> >You were never qualified as an expert witness on sound recording
copyrights,
> >>
> >> Have you? I'm guessing no. Am I right?
> >
> >I've never been involved in a situation that would require it. ...
>
> In other words: I have copyright litigation experience. You don't.
>
> >> We'll just to agree to disagree.
> >
> >No WE won't-
>
> Yes WE will, whether you like it or not.

I'm sorry- Idon't remember the part of this (or any other) thread, where I
gave you the right to speak, act or make decisions for me. You really need
to get that ego in check- a tall order, but possible if you work on it.

>
> >you are worng as a mtter of law, not opinion.
>
> Now you're a court?!

The courts are not the only avenue for determining that. I see you doing 65
mph in a 45 mph zone- I don't need a court to tell me that you are breaking
the law if I understand the law. In this case, I do understand it. Your
willingness to 'agree to disaggre' usually comes from your inability to
admit error.

>
> >... or should we start referring to you as Jack, Jr.?
>
> You are of course free to act as childish as you wish.
>

Again with the selective quotes. I consider that childish.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.ericsson - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Sat, 15 Jan
2005 09:57:23 GMT, Jack "FUDMEISTER" Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

>> And I think you are wrong. Se we'll just have to agree to disagree, because
>> I'm getting really tired of just rehashing this over and over.
>
>Getting tired of ignoring the fact that:
>
>1. Yoiu never told us that you owned the CD's to produce the ringtones.

Irrelevant.

>2. Never fessed up that publically posting them is not "fair use",

It is Fair Use.

>although you did secretly take them down, and after the fact came up
>with lame excuses for doing so.

They're up.

--
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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.ericsson - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on 15 Jan 2005
06:49:01 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>John wrote:
>> A few of the many available tools (easily found with Google):
>> * Anvil Studio
>> * Audacity
>> * Polyphonic Wizard
>> * RazorLAME
>
>None of those programs will capture the digital data stream from iTunes
>and write it to disk.

I never claimed they would. Read more carefully. What I said was that the
audio stream could be easily captured, and it can.

>Those are all generic audio, MP3, or MIDI
>editing/encoding programs.

Actually they're not, as you would know if you weren't dismissing them out of
hand. Polyphonic Wizard, for example, is specifically designed to encode and
transfer ringtones.

>The DMCA does, in fact, make it illegal to circumvent DRM -
>coincidentally, the iTunes previews in question are DRM-encoded. I
>don't like the DMCA, but it is the law. It is important to note that
>the anti-circumvention rules of the DMCA do _not_ have any fair use
>exemptions.

Read more carefully -- the audio stream has no DRM.

>Since the DRM in the iTunes files must be circumvented to put the files
>onto a phone, ...

False.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>