Pink Kate
#1031
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
There are limited fair use issues, I believe the consensus is you there is
implied permission for recording broadcasts for personal use but the
broadcasters don't really like it. When blank cassette tapes and later VHS
tapes became popular, the recording/movie industries were afraid that it was
so easy to make copies infringement would be wide------, so a portion of the
proceeds from the sale of blank cassettes & videotapes goes to royalties to
offset possible infringement. I imagine part ot Tivo sale proceeds go to
these as well...we have 2 Tivos and that's how I watch the Sopranos and Bill
Maher.
But if you intend to obtain a copy of a copyrighted work without permission
and without paying for it, as Nathan's beloved P2P filesharing programs like
the original incarnation of Napster did, it's copyright infringement, which
is illegal.
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:444D6418.51F8BE31@***.net...
> So we can't copy a basketball game for later listening?
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>> Title 17 of the US Code:
>> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
>>
>> In a nutshell, downloading or otherwise copying/reproducing intellectual
>> property without the copyright owner's permission is illegal. You weren't
>> making the distinction between criminal and civil law until you were
>> called
>> on this statement: "ive stated that i do not break written law"
>>
>> Reporters don't interpret the law, that's the job of activist judges. :-)
>>
>> Why don't you tell Kate why DC threatened you with a lawsuit?
implied permission for recording broadcasts for personal use but the
broadcasters don't really like it. When blank cassette tapes and later VHS
tapes became popular, the recording/movie industries were afraid that it was
so easy to make copies infringement would be wide------, so a portion of the
proceeds from the sale of blank cassettes & videotapes goes to royalties to
offset possible infringement. I imagine part ot Tivo sale proceeds go to
these as well...we have 2 Tivos and that's how I watch the Sopranos and Bill
Maher.
But if you intend to obtain a copy of a copyrighted work without permission
and without paying for it, as Nathan's beloved P2P filesharing programs like
the original incarnation of Napster did, it's copyright infringement, which
is illegal.
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:444D6418.51F8BE31@***.net...
> So we can't copy a basketball game for later listening?
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>> Title 17 of the US Code:
>> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
>>
>> In a nutshell, downloading or otherwise copying/reproducing intellectual
>> property without the copyright owner's permission is illegal. You weren't
>> making the distinction between criminal and civil law until you were
>> called
>> on this statement: "ive stated that i do not break written law"
>>
>> Reporters don't interpret the law, that's the job of activist judges. :-)
>>
>> Why don't you tell Kate why DC threatened you with a lawsuit?
#1032
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
> Now you're playing Nathan's game. I did **not** say that I am the only
> one
> who is capable of objectivity, and I did **not** say that "someone with
> first hand experience doesn't know what he's talking about". I **did**
> say
> that lots of people "don't see the forest for the trees". They get in the
> middle of a situation, and can't properly assess what is happening, until
> years or decades later.
I'm not playing a game. I never said that you *said* that, but you *did*
roll everyone with "first hand" experience into a group as unable to achieve
objectivity because of said experience.
It is your demeanor in each and every post. It is the answers, and the
"better than thou" attitude you convey that I take issue with.
I have no knowledge of the wolf / conservation problem in Montana. I can't
address it, but if I were looking a wolf in the face, performing an act in
my presence that you say can't be so because it isn't in the book, I'd say
to hell with your book. I think that's what he's saying.
Don't be so closed minded to think there is a rule you read somewhere that
dictates what wildlife will do each and everytime a certain situation comes
up.
I'm saying he stated his views, you stated yours, then you and several
others started picking him apart over his views, basically demanding he give
your opinion it's due respect, while receiving none from you.
As Bill O'Reilly says, "you sir may have the last word".
Spdloader
#1033
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
> Now you're playing Nathan's game. I did **not** say that I am the only
> one
> who is capable of objectivity, and I did **not** say that "someone with
> first hand experience doesn't know what he's talking about". I **did**
> say
> that lots of people "don't see the forest for the trees". They get in the
> middle of a situation, and can't properly assess what is happening, until
> years or decades later.
I'm not playing a game. I never said that you *said* that, but you *did*
roll everyone with "first hand" experience into a group as unable to achieve
objectivity because of said experience.
It is your demeanor in each and every post. It is the answers, and the
"better than thou" attitude you convey that I take issue with.
I have no knowledge of the wolf / conservation problem in Montana. I can't
address it, but if I were looking a wolf in the face, performing an act in
my presence that you say can't be so because it isn't in the book, I'd say
to hell with your book. I think that's what he's saying.
Don't be so closed minded to think there is a rule you read somewhere that
dictates what wildlife will do each and everytime a certain situation comes
up.
I'm saying he stated his views, you stated yours, then you and several
others started picking him apart over his views, basically demanding he give
your opinion it's due respect, while receiving none from you.
As Bill O'Reilly says, "you sir may have the last word".
Spdloader
#1034
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
> Now you're playing Nathan's game. I did **not** say that I am the only
> one
> who is capable of objectivity, and I did **not** say that "someone with
> first hand experience doesn't know what he's talking about". I **did**
> say
> that lots of people "don't see the forest for the trees". They get in the
> middle of a situation, and can't properly assess what is happening, until
> years or decades later.
I'm not playing a game. I never said that you *said* that, but you *did*
roll everyone with "first hand" experience into a group as unable to achieve
objectivity because of said experience.
It is your demeanor in each and every post. It is the answers, and the
"better than thou" attitude you convey that I take issue with.
I have no knowledge of the wolf / conservation problem in Montana. I can't
address it, but if I were looking a wolf in the face, performing an act in
my presence that you say can't be so because it isn't in the book, I'd say
to hell with your book. I think that's what he's saying.
Don't be so closed minded to think there is a rule you read somewhere that
dictates what wildlife will do each and everytime a certain situation comes
up.
I'm saying he stated his views, you stated yours, then you and several
others started picking him apart over his views, basically demanding he give
your opinion it's due respect, while receiving none from you.
As Bill O'Reilly says, "you sir may have the last word".
Spdloader
#1035
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
In that case, I will top post my reply. I didn't adopt this "demeanor",
until after Nathan several times called me "crazy". If you don't like the
demeanor, don't call me crazy. It might be a good idea to store this
information on a Post-It on the side of your monitor. There are people
where I live, who would be better off now, had they done so.
Nathan is saying that his individual experience, and that of his
wolf-poacher vigilante buddies, outweighs the bulk of accumulated human
knowledge. Don't bother denying it, Nathan. The books and studies that I
am talking about, constitute what they call in law "the preponderance of the
evidence". And that says, that he is wrong. If he wants to be taken
seriously, then he'd better pay attention to what the professionals say on
this subject. And you don't get to pick the one naturalist, who agrees with
your position, and call the rest "crazy", not if you want to be taken
seriously.
Wolves are individuals, just like humans. Whatever Nathan saw, or thinks he
saw, that doesn't prove that they are all bad.
Earle
"Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:REe3g.5104$P65.65@southeast.rr.com...
>
> > Now you're playing Nathan's game. I did **not** say that I am the only
> > one
> > who is capable of objectivity, and I did **not** say that "someone with
> > first hand experience doesn't know what he's talking about". I **did**
> > say
> > that lots of people "don't see the forest for the trees". They get in
the
> > middle of a situation, and can't properly assess what is happening,
until
> > years or decades later.
>
> I'm not playing a game. I never said that you *said* that, but you *did*
> roll everyone with "first hand" experience into a group as unable to
achieve
> objectivity because of said experience.
>
> It is your demeanor in each and every post. It is the answers, and the
> "better than thou" attitude you convey that I take issue with.
>
> I have no knowledge of the wolf / conservation problem in Montana. I
can't
> address it, but if I were looking a wolf in the face, performing an act in
> my presence that you say can't be so because it isn't in the book, I'd say
> to hell with your book. I think that's what he's saying.
>
> Don't be so closed minded to think there is a rule you read somewhere that
> dictates what wildlife will do each and everytime a certain situation
comes
> up.
>
> I'm saying he stated his views, you stated yours, then you and several
> others started picking him apart over his views, basically demanding he
give
> your opinion it's due respect, while receiving none from you.
>
> As Bill O'Reilly says, "you sir may have the last word".
>
> Spdloader
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
until after Nathan several times called me "crazy". If you don't like the
demeanor, don't call me crazy. It might be a good idea to store this
information on a Post-It on the side of your monitor. There are people
where I live, who would be better off now, had they done so.
Nathan is saying that his individual experience, and that of his
wolf-poacher vigilante buddies, outweighs the bulk of accumulated human
knowledge. Don't bother denying it, Nathan. The books and studies that I
am talking about, constitute what they call in law "the preponderance of the
evidence". And that says, that he is wrong. If he wants to be taken
seriously, then he'd better pay attention to what the professionals say on
this subject. And you don't get to pick the one naturalist, who agrees with
your position, and call the rest "crazy", not if you want to be taken
seriously.
Wolves are individuals, just like humans. Whatever Nathan saw, or thinks he
saw, that doesn't prove that they are all bad.
Earle
"Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:REe3g.5104$P65.65@southeast.rr.com...
>
> > Now you're playing Nathan's game. I did **not** say that I am the only
> > one
> > who is capable of objectivity, and I did **not** say that "someone with
> > first hand experience doesn't know what he's talking about". I **did**
> > say
> > that lots of people "don't see the forest for the trees". They get in
the
> > middle of a situation, and can't properly assess what is happening,
until
> > years or decades later.
>
> I'm not playing a game. I never said that you *said* that, but you *did*
> roll everyone with "first hand" experience into a group as unable to
achieve
> objectivity because of said experience.
>
> It is your demeanor in each and every post. It is the answers, and the
> "better than thou" attitude you convey that I take issue with.
>
> I have no knowledge of the wolf / conservation problem in Montana. I
can't
> address it, but if I were looking a wolf in the face, performing an act in
> my presence that you say can't be so because it isn't in the book, I'd say
> to hell with your book. I think that's what he's saying.
>
> Don't be so closed minded to think there is a rule you read somewhere that
> dictates what wildlife will do each and everytime a certain situation
comes
> up.
>
> I'm saying he stated his views, you stated yours, then you and several
> others started picking him apart over his views, basically demanding he
give
> your opinion it's due respect, while receiving none from you.
>
> As Bill O'Reilly says, "you sir may have the last word".
>
> Spdloader
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
#1036
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
In that case, I will top post my reply. I didn't adopt this "demeanor",
until after Nathan several times called me "crazy". If you don't like the
demeanor, don't call me crazy. It might be a good idea to store this
information on a Post-It on the side of your monitor. There are people
where I live, who would be better off now, had they done so.
Nathan is saying that his individual experience, and that of his
wolf-poacher vigilante buddies, outweighs the bulk of accumulated human
knowledge. Don't bother denying it, Nathan. The books and studies that I
am talking about, constitute what they call in law "the preponderance of the
evidence". And that says, that he is wrong. If he wants to be taken
seriously, then he'd better pay attention to what the professionals say on
this subject. And you don't get to pick the one naturalist, who agrees with
your position, and call the rest "crazy", not if you want to be taken
seriously.
Wolves are individuals, just like humans. Whatever Nathan saw, or thinks he
saw, that doesn't prove that they are all bad.
Earle
"Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:REe3g.5104$P65.65@southeast.rr.com...
>
> > Now you're playing Nathan's game. I did **not** say that I am the only
> > one
> > who is capable of objectivity, and I did **not** say that "someone with
> > first hand experience doesn't know what he's talking about". I **did**
> > say
> > that lots of people "don't see the forest for the trees". They get in
the
> > middle of a situation, and can't properly assess what is happening,
until
> > years or decades later.
>
> I'm not playing a game. I never said that you *said* that, but you *did*
> roll everyone with "first hand" experience into a group as unable to
achieve
> objectivity because of said experience.
>
> It is your demeanor in each and every post. It is the answers, and the
> "better than thou" attitude you convey that I take issue with.
>
> I have no knowledge of the wolf / conservation problem in Montana. I
can't
> address it, but if I were looking a wolf in the face, performing an act in
> my presence that you say can't be so because it isn't in the book, I'd say
> to hell with your book. I think that's what he's saying.
>
> Don't be so closed minded to think there is a rule you read somewhere that
> dictates what wildlife will do each and everytime a certain situation
comes
> up.
>
> I'm saying he stated his views, you stated yours, then you and several
> others started picking him apart over his views, basically demanding he
give
> your opinion it's due respect, while receiving none from you.
>
> As Bill O'Reilly says, "you sir may have the last word".
>
> Spdloader
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
until after Nathan several times called me "crazy". If you don't like the
demeanor, don't call me crazy. It might be a good idea to store this
information on a Post-It on the side of your monitor. There are people
where I live, who would be better off now, had they done so.
Nathan is saying that his individual experience, and that of his
wolf-poacher vigilante buddies, outweighs the bulk of accumulated human
knowledge. Don't bother denying it, Nathan. The books and studies that I
am talking about, constitute what they call in law "the preponderance of the
evidence". And that says, that he is wrong. If he wants to be taken
seriously, then he'd better pay attention to what the professionals say on
this subject. And you don't get to pick the one naturalist, who agrees with
your position, and call the rest "crazy", not if you want to be taken
seriously.
Wolves are individuals, just like humans. Whatever Nathan saw, or thinks he
saw, that doesn't prove that they are all bad.
Earle
"Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:REe3g.5104$P65.65@southeast.rr.com...
>
> > Now you're playing Nathan's game. I did **not** say that I am the only
> > one
> > who is capable of objectivity, and I did **not** say that "someone with
> > first hand experience doesn't know what he's talking about". I **did**
> > say
> > that lots of people "don't see the forest for the trees". They get in
the
> > middle of a situation, and can't properly assess what is happening,
until
> > years or decades later.
>
> I'm not playing a game. I never said that you *said* that, but you *did*
> roll everyone with "first hand" experience into a group as unable to
achieve
> objectivity because of said experience.
>
> It is your demeanor in each and every post. It is the answers, and the
> "better than thou" attitude you convey that I take issue with.
>
> I have no knowledge of the wolf / conservation problem in Montana. I
can't
> address it, but if I were looking a wolf in the face, performing an act in
> my presence that you say can't be so because it isn't in the book, I'd say
> to hell with your book. I think that's what he's saying.
>
> Don't be so closed minded to think there is a rule you read somewhere that
> dictates what wildlife will do each and everytime a certain situation
comes
> up.
>
> I'm saying he stated his views, you stated yours, then you and several
> others started picking him apart over his views, basically demanding he
give
> your opinion it's due respect, while receiving none from you.
>
> As Bill O'Reilly says, "you sir may have the last word".
>
> Spdloader
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
#1037
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
In that case, I will top post my reply. I didn't adopt this "demeanor",
until after Nathan several times called me "crazy". If you don't like the
demeanor, don't call me crazy. It might be a good idea to store this
information on a Post-It on the side of your monitor. There are people
where I live, who would be better off now, had they done so.
Nathan is saying that his individual experience, and that of his
wolf-poacher vigilante buddies, outweighs the bulk of accumulated human
knowledge. Don't bother denying it, Nathan. The books and studies that I
am talking about, constitute what they call in law "the preponderance of the
evidence". And that says, that he is wrong. If he wants to be taken
seriously, then he'd better pay attention to what the professionals say on
this subject. And you don't get to pick the one naturalist, who agrees with
your position, and call the rest "crazy", not if you want to be taken
seriously.
Wolves are individuals, just like humans. Whatever Nathan saw, or thinks he
saw, that doesn't prove that they are all bad.
Earle
"Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:REe3g.5104$P65.65@southeast.rr.com...
>
> > Now you're playing Nathan's game. I did **not** say that I am the only
> > one
> > who is capable of objectivity, and I did **not** say that "someone with
> > first hand experience doesn't know what he's talking about". I **did**
> > say
> > that lots of people "don't see the forest for the trees". They get in
the
> > middle of a situation, and can't properly assess what is happening,
until
> > years or decades later.
>
> I'm not playing a game. I never said that you *said* that, but you *did*
> roll everyone with "first hand" experience into a group as unable to
achieve
> objectivity because of said experience.
>
> It is your demeanor in each and every post. It is the answers, and the
> "better than thou" attitude you convey that I take issue with.
>
> I have no knowledge of the wolf / conservation problem in Montana. I
can't
> address it, but if I were looking a wolf in the face, performing an act in
> my presence that you say can't be so because it isn't in the book, I'd say
> to hell with your book. I think that's what he's saying.
>
> Don't be so closed minded to think there is a rule you read somewhere that
> dictates what wildlife will do each and everytime a certain situation
comes
> up.
>
> I'm saying he stated his views, you stated yours, then you and several
> others started picking him apart over his views, basically demanding he
give
> your opinion it's due respect, while receiving none from you.
>
> As Bill O'Reilly says, "you sir may have the last word".
>
> Spdloader
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
until after Nathan several times called me "crazy". If you don't like the
demeanor, don't call me crazy. It might be a good idea to store this
information on a Post-It on the side of your monitor. There are people
where I live, who would be better off now, had they done so.
Nathan is saying that his individual experience, and that of his
wolf-poacher vigilante buddies, outweighs the bulk of accumulated human
knowledge. Don't bother denying it, Nathan. The books and studies that I
am talking about, constitute what they call in law "the preponderance of the
evidence". And that says, that he is wrong. If he wants to be taken
seriously, then he'd better pay attention to what the professionals say on
this subject. And you don't get to pick the one naturalist, who agrees with
your position, and call the rest "crazy", not if you want to be taken
seriously.
Wolves are individuals, just like humans. Whatever Nathan saw, or thinks he
saw, that doesn't prove that they are all bad.
Earle
"Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:REe3g.5104$P65.65@southeast.rr.com...
>
> > Now you're playing Nathan's game. I did **not** say that I am the only
> > one
> > who is capable of objectivity, and I did **not** say that "someone with
> > first hand experience doesn't know what he's talking about". I **did**
> > say
> > that lots of people "don't see the forest for the trees". They get in
the
> > middle of a situation, and can't properly assess what is happening,
until
> > years or decades later.
>
> I'm not playing a game. I never said that you *said* that, but you *did*
> roll everyone with "first hand" experience into a group as unable to
achieve
> objectivity because of said experience.
>
> It is your demeanor in each and every post. It is the answers, and the
> "better than thou" attitude you convey that I take issue with.
>
> I have no knowledge of the wolf / conservation problem in Montana. I
can't
> address it, but if I were looking a wolf in the face, performing an act in
> my presence that you say can't be so because it isn't in the book, I'd say
> to hell with your book. I think that's what he's saying.
>
> Don't be so closed minded to think there is a rule you read somewhere that
> dictates what wildlife will do each and everytime a certain situation
comes
> up.
>
> I'm saying he stated his views, you stated yours, then you and several
> others started picking him apart over his views, basically demanding he
give
> your opinion it's due respect, while receiving none from you.
>
> As Bill O'Reilly says, "you sir may have the last word".
>
> Spdloader
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
#1038
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
I put a Gigabyte of songs, all legal by "fair use doctrine", on an mp3
player. Then I plug it into the cassette player in my Wrangler.
Earle
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:444D90FB.A0C66CEA@***.net...
> And so do I, now if this group would keep from irritating me long
> enough to watch an episode: http://www.----------.com/temp/tivo.jpg And
> of course you don't burn CDs for your truck.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> >
> > There are limited fair use issues, I believe the consensus is you there
is
> > implied permission for recording broadcasts for personal use but the
> > broadcasters don't really like it. When blank cassette tapes and later
VHS
> > tapes became popular, the recording/movie industries were afraid that it
was
> > so easy to make copies infringement would be wide------, so a portion of
the
> > proceeds from the sale of blank cassettes & videotapes goes to royalties
to
> > offset possible infringement. I imagine part ot Tivo sale proceeds go to
> > these as well...we have 2 Tivos and that's how I watch the Sopranos and
Bill
> > Maher.
> >
> > But if you intend to obtain a copy of a copyrighted work without
permission
> > and without paying for it, as Nathan's beloved P2P filesharing programs
like
> > the original incarnation of Napster did, it's copyright infringement,
which
> > is illegal.
player. Then I plug it into the cassette player in my Wrangler.
Earle
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:444D90FB.A0C66CEA@***.net...
> And so do I, now if this group would keep from irritating me long
> enough to watch an episode: http://www.----------.com/temp/tivo.jpg And
> of course you don't burn CDs for your truck.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> >
> > There are limited fair use issues, I believe the consensus is you there
is
> > implied permission for recording broadcasts for personal use but the
> > broadcasters don't really like it. When blank cassette tapes and later
VHS
> > tapes became popular, the recording/movie industries were afraid that it
was
> > so easy to make copies infringement would be wide------, so a portion of
the
> > proceeds from the sale of blank cassettes & videotapes goes to royalties
to
> > offset possible infringement. I imagine part ot Tivo sale proceeds go to
> > these as well...we have 2 Tivos and that's how I watch the Sopranos and
Bill
> > Maher.
> >
> > But if you intend to obtain a copy of a copyrighted work without
permission
> > and without paying for it, as Nathan's beloved P2P filesharing programs
like
> > the original incarnation of Napster did, it's copyright infringement,
which
> > is illegal.
#1039
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
I put a Gigabyte of songs, all legal by "fair use doctrine", on an mp3
player. Then I plug it into the cassette player in my Wrangler.
Earle
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:444D90FB.A0C66CEA@***.net...
> And so do I, now if this group would keep from irritating me long
> enough to watch an episode: http://www.----------.com/temp/tivo.jpg And
> of course you don't burn CDs for your truck.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> >
> > There are limited fair use issues, I believe the consensus is you there
is
> > implied permission for recording broadcasts for personal use but the
> > broadcasters don't really like it. When blank cassette tapes and later
VHS
> > tapes became popular, the recording/movie industries were afraid that it
was
> > so easy to make copies infringement would be wide------, so a portion of
the
> > proceeds from the sale of blank cassettes & videotapes goes to royalties
to
> > offset possible infringement. I imagine part ot Tivo sale proceeds go to
> > these as well...we have 2 Tivos and that's how I watch the Sopranos and
Bill
> > Maher.
> >
> > But if you intend to obtain a copy of a copyrighted work without
permission
> > and without paying for it, as Nathan's beloved P2P filesharing programs
like
> > the original incarnation of Napster did, it's copyright infringement,
which
> > is illegal.
player. Then I plug it into the cassette player in my Wrangler.
Earle
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:444D90FB.A0C66CEA@***.net...
> And so do I, now if this group would keep from irritating me long
> enough to watch an episode: http://www.----------.com/temp/tivo.jpg And
> of course you don't burn CDs for your truck.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> >
> > There are limited fair use issues, I believe the consensus is you there
is
> > implied permission for recording broadcasts for personal use but the
> > broadcasters don't really like it. When blank cassette tapes and later
VHS
> > tapes became popular, the recording/movie industries were afraid that it
was
> > so easy to make copies infringement would be wide------, so a portion of
the
> > proceeds from the sale of blank cassettes & videotapes goes to royalties
to
> > offset possible infringement. I imagine part ot Tivo sale proceeds go to
> > these as well...we have 2 Tivos and that's how I watch the Sopranos and
Bill
> > Maher.
> >
> > But if you intend to obtain a copy of a copyrighted work without
permission
> > and without paying for it, as Nathan's beloved P2P filesharing programs
like
> > the original incarnation of Napster did, it's copyright infringement,
which
> > is illegal.
#1040
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
I put a Gigabyte of songs, all legal by "fair use doctrine", on an mp3
player. Then I plug it into the cassette player in my Wrangler.
Earle
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:444D90FB.A0C66CEA@***.net...
> And so do I, now if this group would keep from irritating me long
> enough to watch an episode: http://www.----------.com/temp/tivo.jpg And
> of course you don't burn CDs for your truck.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> >
> > There are limited fair use issues, I believe the consensus is you there
is
> > implied permission for recording broadcasts for personal use but the
> > broadcasters don't really like it. When blank cassette tapes and later
VHS
> > tapes became popular, the recording/movie industries were afraid that it
was
> > so easy to make copies infringement would be wide------, so a portion of
the
> > proceeds from the sale of blank cassettes & videotapes goes to royalties
to
> > offset possible infringement. I imagine part ot Tivo sale proceeds go to
> > these as well...we have 2 Tivos and that's how I watch the Sopranos and
Bill
> > Maher.
> >
> > But if you intend to obtain a copy of a copyrighted work without
permission
> > and without paying for it, as Nathan's beloved P2P filesharing programs
like
> > the original incarnation of Napster did, it's copyright infringement,
which
> > is illegal.
player. Then I plug it into the cassette player in my Wrangler.
Earle
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:444D90FB.A0C66CEA@***.net...
> And so do I, now if this group would keep from irritating me long
> enough to watch an episode: http://www.----------.com/temp/tivo.jpg And
> of course you don't burn CDs for your truck.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> >
> > There are limited fair use issues, I believe the consensus is you there
is
> > implied permission for recording broadcasts for personal use but the
> > broadcasters don't really like it. When blank cassette tapes and later
VHS
> > tapes became popular, the recording/movie industries were afraid that it
was
> > so easy to make copies infringement would be wide------, so a portion of
the
> > proceeds from the sale of blank cassettes & videotapes goes to royalties
to
> > offset possible infringement. I imagine part ot Tivo sale proceeds go to
> > these as well...we have 2 Tivos and that's how I watch the Sopranos and
Bill
> > Maher.
> >
> > But if you intend to obtain a copy of a copyrighted work without
permission
> > and without paying for it, as Nathan's beloved P2P filesharing programs
like
> > the original incarnation of Napster did, it's copyright infringement,
which
> > is illegal.