Slashdot Mirror
Sony BMG Says Ripping CDs is Stealing
LKM writes "Sony seems to think we should not be allowed to rip CDs we own to our iPods. In fact, doing so is stealing, and we should all re-buy songs, preferably one copy for each device. Says Jennifer Pariser, the head of litigation for Sony BMG: 'When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song. Making a copy of a purchased song is just a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'.'
I guess somebody should tell Sony about all the devices Sony produces that allow this stealing to occur!"
I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
In Canada we've paid the copyright levy for years for the "right" to do exactly this. They can't have it both ways. Either take our money via the levy and permit it, or take the money via second purchases but not both.
...when they were making mix tapes back in the 80's? If copying is copying then I don't see the difference...
Clearly all the major record labels got together about 15 years ago and decided that they had already made entirely too much money, and wagered amongst themselves to see who could do the most to kill the music industry. It's been a fun ride guys, but you're just getting too blatant now, we're onto your little game.
.... I didn't even bought a license as you claimed before. I bought nothing at all. So what exactly did I buy from you?
"We market CDs to allow the customer to sample the music. Every additional time the customer listens to the CD translates to lost sales for us. We will make sure that legislation exists to charge the customer to prevent people from stealing and unfairly gaining from our copyrights."
Yours sincerely,
RIAA.
Then I might as well just skip buying the cd and go straight to downloading it from eDonkey. Seriously, if it's come to buying one copy for every device I want to listen on (including one cd for my car and one cd for my home stereo) then fuck it, I am just going to steal it from the get go. Suck on it, Sony.
the copyright act allows for format transfer. usual restrictions apply.
sony sucks.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
"Record companies have never objected to someone making a copy of a CD for their own personal use." http://www.riaa.com/faq.php
But in this instance I can't. When confronted with such an asinine comment my gut reactions kick in and all I can think of is:
I want to throw a phonebook at her and knock her off the podium. Preferably mid-sentence with video footage. Big yellow book smacking her in the side of her head from out of nowhere. Sure, I'd go to jail for assault, but that video would be on the internet. Being shared (she would call it stolen) and laughed at by thousands of people. That would be my solace.
Sorry for my lapse of any real discussion, but some people just need a good old whack upside the head.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Tell Jennifer what you think of her - (212) 833-7362
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1755781_1
but installing rootkits is okay
I suppose I can say that woman is a terrorist and an enemy of the United States, and should be thrown into Gitmo forever.
Making a supposition, however, isn't the same thing as proving one, nor does it constitute a good prima face argument in its favor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act
Well I think Sony Electronics might have heard of this (betamax anyone?) but Sony BMG hasn't? Aren't they part of he same corporate entity, or at least owned by the same corporate entity? Are the board members suffering from multiple personality disorder or something?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
What a change from the Sony vs. Universal Studios case, when Sony argued (and won) that copying television programs for time-shifting was a legitimate exercise of fair use.
That was back when Sony regarded themselves as a technology company rather than a content provider, of course.
Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTbX1aMajow
...until Sony sues itself for contributing to piracy.
I think it would be nice to see the record cartel shrink even more as people spend more time listening to live music or playing it themselves instead of being passive consumers of recorded music. Folks might also consider patronizing independent artists.
Why would you put someone who lacks even a fundamental understanding of copyright law in charge of your litigation group?
Oh wait... is she hot?
which they've received for blank tapes and stop producing blank media suitable for copying music as a sign that they feel such actions are wrong.
William
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
I wonder what is their business -- they have been bribing legislators into extending copyrights, engaging in egregious copyright abuse -- RIAA-style and otherwise, price fixing, racket, swindling artists of their money; likely more than once their agents have supplied those said artists with banned substances, resulting in, among other harm, loss of creative output from the said artists, to the detriment of us all. they fail to see that it is easy to fling shit, and their shit is likely stinkier than mere copying of a CD. what is amusing is how short-sighted the MAFIAA-like institutions are to continue their crusade against the public domain in the dumbest way possible -- by accusing larger and larger groups of the said society of doing the things it has always done. hey, MAFIAA guys, i have news for you. it may be called copyright, but it ain't a right -- it is a license to a monopoly. it may go as it has come -- if you press too much, the backlash against copyright-like monopoly may come sooner and with more power than you can possibly imagine ;)
If I'm walking down the street and I notice I have a particular tune in my head... my neural pathways have reconfigured to reproduce a copy of the music. Do I have to pay for this?
People in the general public are starting to get sick and tired of hearing what they can and can't do with music. No wonder the rate of piracy is growing on a daily basis. When you have the chest-beating RIAA and it's affiliates telling people they should pay more and more for music (which is substandard these days IMHO, but thats another topic), people are more likely to look for other resources to acquire the music they want. I believe it's starting to turn into the 'path of least resistance' theory, relative to spending money on music. If you keep jacking prices up, telling people they can't use their purchased item the way they want to and blame it on illegal file sharing software, people are going to start using the illegal file sharing software due to the fact they can't afford the product anymore.
Can you imagine if you were to use the metaphor of eating. If you hunger for food, and buy food to eat, you will eat it when you want. If you were suddenly told that you could only eat during certain hours and couldn't share your food with others who can't afford to eat, you wouldn't be to happy. Suddenly, there is a place where they stole the same seeds (metaphorically speaking) to make the same food but they gave it away for free. The people you used to buy the food off would go out of business right? So they try to bend the laws and make new ones to protect something that should be free (or at least paid back to the farmers) from the thieves.
Here is the problem with that analogy. The farmers work hard to make the food we eat, but they get paid tiny amounts of money for their goods. The store puts a huge markup on it and rips off the consumer.
Do you see the pattern?
If the RIAA, BMG, SONY, UMG, EMI, etc keep on proclaiming to the masses that they own the music, they will be killed off like the dinosaurs they are.
I certainly hope I stayed on topic for that.
Time for a lie down methinks.
You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
Sony should not really focus or speak up on copying. Copying is moot nowadays as the properties are not physical, but intellectual. A computer may copy a song as soon as you transfer something bought on iTunes to your iPod. Should that be an illegal action? Of course not! But still, you did, indeed, copy a file you had downloaded. Is there a difference here in what one might do with a CD? No, because in both cases, you make another copy of the product for playing in e.g. a mobile device.
The only straw that's left for Sony to grasp at is not about copying, but about breaching licenses. But that would seem to apply more to DRM'ed material to me, than physical CD's. You do click through a license agreement when installing iTunes and there is also the DMCA to disallow decrypting DRM protected media. But what about CD's? I don't enter even something as little as a click through contract, and neither do I need to (normally, thank god) decrypt a CD to rip its content.
This Sony rep may "suppose" whatever he wish, but that's to me merely his opinion, not law or anything. If it's considered fair use to play a single intellectual property for own use on your own devices (and I can't really see how it could possibly be anything but that), then this should be OK. Let's not involve the copying part so much, because a computer copies files a lot, even sometimes when you don't know it or it's not 100% apparent to the user, or not necessarily a user initiated action. It copies a lot of things to RAM too, which is quite literally transfering material from your hard drive to another hardware device.
Involving copying will just make matters more complex to sort out and understand for their customers and is, besides, quite irrelevant. Who cares how many copies you make and to where? IMHO, what only matters is whether you breach a contract. And in that case, I can only agree with them that the copyright infringement here is if it's causing a financial loss to the copyright holder.
But then -- that would mean that, in this case, Sony would need to honestly believe an artist lose money on someone who carries an owned CD to the car stereo, which is quite crazy. Since that also means a user isn't purchasing two copies for playing it on another device.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song. Making a copy of a purchased song is just a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'.
I generally pay for my music. I won't claim that I own a CD for every song in my collection, but easily over 99% of them. I buy most of them used for a pittance, and rip them to my file server. I do not use P2P programs, or download from any of the massive music archives, or USE the NET to easily find anything I might ever what to listen to, or even copy (and keep) tracks from friends. I do this because I, as do most people, prefer to stay legal. I consider myself reasonable on that... Sony provides something I want, I provide them with the only thing they want.
So when Sony comes out and makes statements like this, calling me a thief for using the music I buy in the way I prefer, it makes me unhappy. This leads to a certain level of cognitive dissonance on my part - I want to engage in a fair trade of goods for money, but the other party considers my terms a form of robbery.
As I will not change my current behavior for the sake of making Sony feel better, nor will I give up the pleasure of listening to music that happens to fall under their control, they have effectively removed my mental barrier to "stealing" their entire catalog.
Congrats, Sony, you have made it clear you consider the two actions - Buying and stealing - equivalent. Thus, I feel no moral dilemma in seeking out and downloading every song you've ever published. You consider that the same as my buying them, so why would I actually pay for them? By simply downloading them all, you view me the same, yet I save thousands of dollars. Thank you, Sony, for making this so much easier!
I don't know if they hooked up a fax machine because of the flood of calls, but please please, someone with a fax, send them something.
For extra points, tape several sheets together and write "We Will Not Purchase Music From Sony BMG Until You Change Your Position," feed it through the fax machine, tape the ends together so they receive never-ending protest message, take a picture of yourself doing it (not your face, of course), post it on imageshack.us, and share the joy with the rest of us.
You can do it. I know you can.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
You know what, I personally have no problem with paying again for each and every new copy of a song. But if that's the case, the CD is no longer worth any near what they are charging for it. If I have to pay for each copy, I want to be able to buy CDs for $1 each. Individual songs should cost ten cents. Because that's about all they are worth if I have to buy multiple copies. Oh, and I want a law (or contract) requiring Sony to make available new copies of all old music. When my old CD gets too scratched up to work, I want to be able to buy a replacement. And in doing so, I would thank Sony personally for providing the funding for my music backup solution. And finally, Sony needs to provide a service that allows me to assemble various tracks from multiple CDs into a new customized CD. For that service they can charge a little more... say $1.50 total.
Sony, are you sure you're ready to go down this road? By accusing your _average_ customer of being a pirate, you are either pushing them to become what you are calling them, or you are devaluing your own product significantly. I would personally like to recommend that you train a certain lawyer to ask whether or not we'd like fries with that and send her packing.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Ok, so let's pretend I'm a big Sony fanboi (do these even exist?) and I want to listen to my Sony produced music 'legally'. I have a Sony stereo system, Sony mp3 player and a Sony laptop. Oh, and I want to pop it on a memory stick and listen to it on my Sony PS3. Now, suppose I bought a whole CD but I really only like 5 songs on the CD. Suppose I paid $15 for it. That's $3 per song since I don't care about the other crappy filler songs.
/song, and to buy online let's say $1 per song times 3. That's $6 per song to listen to that song on all the devices I have. Oh, but I have 5 songs from that album I like so that's $30 of music for 5 songs.
I have 4 music playing devices (all Sony brand 'cause remember I'm pretending to be a big Sony fan), so I'll have to re-buy the songs online for each device.
So, the CD for my stereo is $3
Now, someone please name even ONE song that's worth that price? I can listen to the radio for FREE and hear most songs eventually.
This is a joke. Sony, please show me where the awesome musical masterpieces that are worth $6 per song are. I'm dying to know... cause what's out these days isn't worth a few quarters.
Idiots.
Nah, it appears you let the Wookie win.
Remember, there is a difference between Sony's hardware division that makes stuff that plays music, and Sony's music division that signs artists, and distributes music.
The hardware people are reasonable, they want their stuff to be able to play everything, and record everything, and they want it to work 100% of the time.
The music people just want you to buy their stuff over and over and over. They don't care if you EVER listen to it.
It's a big corporation, and all the parts aren't always working in the same direction, so don't throw down on the people who make stereo equipment, and the DVD-W's you're using to flawlessly copy movies, just because the music people are douchebags.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
In addition, there's no way to listen to legally owned copyrighted MP3s you downloaded. That would mean making at least a partial copy in memory. That's stealing.
Backing up your hard drive is out.
Sorry guys. It's time we all got responsible and went back to legally purchased MiniDiscs.
In all seriousness, Sony's board should take a long hard look at the legal advice the company is receiving.
From a legal standpoint, this an incorrect statement on a subject that not only has a Supreme-Court-level case precedent, but which was decided by an argument that Sony themselves advanced.
From a practical standpoint, Sony makes quite a bit of money from electronic devices that do the very things to which Jennifer is referring. It is not good business to level accusations against broad swaths of your own customers.
From an investing standpoint, her statement under oath, as head of litigation for the music unit, could easily be construed as a warning that in the future, Sony will consider litigating against their own customers for using Sony products in the way they were designed. She is in a position of management and her statement has forward-looking implications.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Sony probably thinks that is stealing too. They are contacting the politicians they own right now to create a law making it illegal not to buy their products.
09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63
Hello.
This is the Oxford English Dictionary speaking. We are writing here to tell you that we are not happy. Not happy at all. We go through all the trouble of cataloguing every single word in the English language (even aardvark) and release it in one handy publication and what do you people do with it?
YOU COPY THEM.
YOU USE THEM AS IF THEY WERE YOUR OWN.
YOU PASS THEM ONTO FRIENDS.
YOU MASH THEM TOGETHER WITHOUT CONSIDERATION FOR THE CONSEQUENCES e.g. "fuckmook"
Well we have had enough. Unless you start paying us for using these words we shall have the entire English language withdrawn from use. As far as we're concerned from now on you can just point at things.
Good day to you.
I think buying a CD for use in your car and then playing it in a portable player, or in your office's computer or at home is stealing! You bought the CD for use in the car! You should buy another one for at home, another for in the office and another for your portable player. With the availability for consumers to buy multiple copies of the same thing, there's no need for "personal backups" or any other such nonsense.
Buy the same thing over and over and over. You don't buy just one loaf of bread do you? You don't buy just one shirt do you? Why can't they get it through your collective heads that you NEED to BUY and BUY and BUY! Stop thinking! Stop budgeting! BUY BUY BUY!!! Who cares if they don't come out with anything new! BUY!!!
But,
What about the people that do get hurt by piracy? What about the people that make money from it?
No I am not talking about MP3 player manufactures or CDRW producers. There was a story on Slashdot about a site that was full of pirated eBooks. There received a take down notice that caused a lot of problems because.
1. It invoked the DMCA for no valid reason.
2. It included one work that was published under Creative Commons.
The up roar over those errors what loud and I feel justified. However no one pointed out that the site did have many ebooks that did violate the authors copyright. Also that site was in the process of raising venture capital and was selling ads. That site is in it for the money just like the publishers.
So we have several groups.
We have the media companies. They are big and vile. They want total control over all media and don't really care about the consumer or the artists rights.
We have the pirates. I will restrict this to the those that are into it for the profit. They are acting like fences. They don't actually break any
copyrights they just help those that do connect up with the people that want the material and make a profit doing it. Oh they will often wrap themselves with the freedom banner but the truth is they are in it for the money.
We have the artists and the authors. They are getting ripped off by both the media companies and the pirates.
You have the hackers and users. They want to use the media they buy any way they want to. It should be completely legal for iTunes or any other software to rip DVDs so people can play them on their computers and media players! Bit Torrent isn't a pirates tool anymore than a sheet of paper is a counterfeiters tool.
As the end user of media we are not hurt by the pirates but we are hurt by DRM and are offended by the erosion of our rights by the media companies. We tend to side with anyone that is against the media companies. But the truth is people do deserve to be paid for their work. It is just as wrong to violate the copyright on a book as it is to violate the GPL. Authors and Artists have the right to be paid for their work. Just as we have the right for fair use. And the DMCA, DRM, RIAA, and MPAA are NOT THE SOLUTION they are if anything a huge part of the problem. DRM makes pirated media easier to deal with than legal media.
If course I wonder when the video companies will realize that bit torent is a small leak in their dike, the flood is NetFlix.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
That is it exactly. Our technology has advanced to the point where we have almost completely free digital replicator copies. It's like the future really got here, amazingly enough. If we don't allow this now, then whenever we have true tangible goods star trek level replicators we won't be allowed to use them either, forced luddism to preserve business profits and models.
bad analogy time, and no cars!
On the ag side, we can see similar happening. For thousands of years, farmers saved their seed, even "shared" with others, so they could replicate food growing tech. Now we are seeing massive use of patented seed, where you can't save it legally, you must buy a new batch every year from the bigagco. Either that or the seed itself is DRMed, it will never breed true or will self destruct after one use-the "terminator technology" that they *really* want. What's next, the big companies will charge you per vegetable? Grow a tomato plant from their patented and DRMed seed, and you'll be required to send in a licensing fee per tomato produced? Only one tomato per seed is legal, the others are illegal copies?
"Citation, please?" is a lazy rhetorical technique which in online discussion forums like Slashdot has come to imply much more about the person asking the question than about anything else. It roughly translates from moronese to English as:
- I'm a moron,
- I disagree with you, but
- I'm too ill-informed to argue my side of the debate, and
- I'm too lazy to look up the resources which are freely available which would help me construct an argument, so
- I'm going to take the low road, and snidely suggest that you defend your argument, whereafter
- I'll assume that you are wrong and I am right because you didn't respond by falling all over yourself by quoting chapter and verse to me,
- but because I have this lingering sense that I might not know what the hell I'm talking about, I'll just post this retort as "Anonymous".
How about, instead of logged in Slashdot participants falling all over themselves to defend every other statement they make from Anonymous "show me a link" asshats, the asshats start reading a little more and learning about the world around them? Don't agree with what someone said? Look it up! You're using Slashdot, so you are already USING THE INTERNET. There are dictionaries and encyclopedias and actual laws, on the internet, mere seconds away from where you are now.Google (fucktard)
Wikipedia (fucktard)
Urban Dictionary (fucktard) (particularly useful when somebody calls you a name you haven't heard before)
Encyclopedia Dramatica (fucktard)
United States code (aka "the law" for U.S. residents)
If you care enough to post, then please devote the five or ten minutes that it might take to research the topic and post your own link refuting the statement that you don't agree with. I'll help you get started, here: U.S. Copyright Law. You don't need a degree in law to read and understand well written laws. If you can't read and understand a law, that's a pretty big hint that it might be broken in some way. Finding relevant sections of the code can be challenging, but Google can be quite helpful with that.
Look it up!
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Naaah. I'm happier working at a computer shop where I can happily tell clients to avoid ALL things Sony. I love the looks on clients faces when I tell 'em about 12-year-olds and grandmothers getting sued... I tell 'em about Sony's brain-dead DRM schemes when they complain that they {for some reason} can't watch a Sony movie on their Sony Media PC. I tell 'em about Sony rootkits...
...and until Sony wises up, I'll KEEP steering people away from them. They're now going to be losing sales on movies, and most importantly, computers. THAT profit margin is a delicious one to yank from those jerks, and will sting more than a "loss" of a music track or two...
To quote Stan: "Excelsior!"
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
This isn't about actually making a sensible statement. I'd say, rather this is another attempt at creating some FUD, spinning a story and fabricating "truth".
For years, the content industry has been engaged in misinformation, claiming something as illegal that wasn't. Making private copies of your content, or even downloading content, is not illegal contrary to their claims, at least in many countries.
Why do you think they wouldn't start a spin about media shifting and fabricating something about it being illegal?
People are generally not lawyers. Instead, they tend to believe it if a lawyer claims something as being illegal. They hear something, hear it again (from a "different" source, like another media lawyer) and presto, instant truth. I'd guess this wasn't the last time we've heard that spin.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
- It's okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes.
- It's also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R's, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) - but, again, not for commercial purposes.
- Beyond that, there's no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won't usually raise concerns so long as:
- The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
- The copy is just for your personal use. It's not a personal use - in fact, it's illegal - to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.
I enjoy that they felt the need to put "right" in quotes, perhaps as a safety precaution in case any lawyer pointed out to them that, in fact, they have no idea what our actual rights are.What about all the CDs which are out of print, that the record companies will not sell any longer? How do you buy a copy of a CD that is not for sale? I thought that was the whole point of fair use, to have a way to preserve media that isn't being sold anymore.
The record companies lobbied here in Canada for a levy on blank media for years. They got it in 1999, and in return, consumers got the right of Private Copying. Actually, this deal favors most consumers, because we are permitted to copy music from any source for our own use; I can take CDs out of the library or borrow them from you and make my own copies, and it's entirely legal up here. The record companies would like you to think that you can only copy on to media subject to the levy, but a close reading of the Copyright Act disproves this view.
A couple of years ago, though, I saw a Norah Jones CD at POS in a Chapters store, and it looked interesting until I saw on the back that it was encumbered with anti-copying technology. I wrote the record company (BMI IIRC) and asked how it is, on the one hand, that they are happy to take my levy money in return for private copying, and on the other hand, that they're attempting to block my copying? The letter challenged them to either give up their portion of levy revenue or drop copy protection. Their response was that the levy "does not begin" to offset losses due to private copying and therefore they had the right to copy-protect. (This whole discussion didn't even touch on whether such copy protection had any chance of working).
There are few industries that think they should get money (levy revenue) in return for something (private copying rights), and then not deliver (copy-protect the media). These companies have successfully exploited both consumers and artists for far too long, and deserve to be totally cut out of the producer-consumer transaction.
We've all wondered about how they could justify high prices for CD's. You are in fact, already paying for multiple copies of the song. Now you've explained it so clearly that the meanest, dumbest recording company executive or lawyer can figure it out.
Nice work, bozo.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
The record companies don't want any competition in the Stealing business.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
We can laugh about this, but isn't that really what a media tax is? A fine for NOT buying the copyright material through normal channels? (Additional burden - assumption of guilt: you pay the fine on media that MIGHT be used to hold a copy of copyrighted material. If you use the media for data, or even as a coaster, you still pay that "fine".
Ewoks look like Wookie children. Chewbacca is a perv.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Is it the automatic looping that's illegal? Because you could take two separate sheets and manually alternate them as well. I figure it may be the harrassment charge, but you could just write really big so a simple message takes 75 pages. I think that would be pretty hard to prosecute. Plus, when I think of what a terrible criminal I am, having converted all 300 CDs my brother and I have purchased (mostly in the height of Napster's glory, fwiw) into OGG or MP3 and put them on a hard drive, I figure I'm already facing millions of dollars and 10 years in prison.
I've also made a backup of that hard drive. So double whatever figures you come up with. Oh, and I've made mix CDs for girls, so escalate that to piracy and distribution.
Plus, you could in theory send and resend the fax maybe 10 times if you didn't get a confirmation. Or, everyone on slashdot could send a one-page fax to that effect. A retro slashdotting would be noteworthy.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Dude, South Park never makes fun of people based on their race, ethnicity, social status, or sexuality. Please, let's not sling mud.
Oh, and wooooooo, season premiere tonight!
Please stop stalking me, bro.
is STEALING! You must all nuke your cd's and buy new ones after each use. You are not entitled to listen to the same crappy song more then once!
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
Now i finally understand how they calculate the amount lost to piracy!
We have a working democracy, you know.
Thing about democracy is that it's two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for dinner - and the corporate culture is the wolf pack.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
Sony is the same company responsible for the court case that defined video-taping a broadcast as legitimate fair use. This precedent has been used to justify making tapes of music legitimately owned on other media to use in cars and portable players like say Walkmans... Someone at Sony hardware needs to walk over to their music division and have a stern talking to with them... That or remove the monitor and record loops from all the ampliphiers and kill the dual tape deck boxen, and the DVRs with built in DVD recorders, and ...
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
http://torrentfreak.com/george-bush-vs-the-riaa/
We're already fed up with the handling of the war... and now BMG blows the whistle on the Bush administration's blatant violation of copyright law. I hope BMG takes care of this and faithfully executes their right, as copyright holder, to bring this man to justice!
Q: How do you know if a Sony BMG employee is lying?
A: His lips are moving
*shrug*
It's Sony. The last time I bought anything from these morons, it was a navigator for my car. Which told me to do a U-turn on the highway at 180 km/h. Asked me to turn right NOW inside a tunnel. Crashed three (three!) times on a distance of 250 km.
Pfff. They used to be good, but today? I am not prepared to buy *anything* from these weirdos. And certainly not CDs (some of which try to install crap on my PC if I play them there, thanks).
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/