Why the heck is it...

[crenca]

 

And one thing I do know is that my lawyers aren't smug, self important jerks.

 

My lawyer is a piece of work. She is a real bitch - which is ok because it is an adversarial system (and not a scientific or any other kind related to finding truth - it is about winning) so I choose lawyers based on ability to put the smack down on the other guy...

[rn701]

My lawyer is a piece of work. She is a real bitch - which is ok because it is an adversarial system (and not a scientific or any other kind related to finding truth - it is about winning) so I choose lawyers based on ability to put the smack down on the other guy...

 

My tough but level headeded lawyers have kept me out of trouble and protected me from situations that required expensive smackdowns. And made me money in the process.

[Sal1950]

I was gambling in Havana - I took a little risk

Send lawyers, guns, and money

Dad, get me out of this

 

I'm hiding in Honduras - I'm a desperate man

Send lawyers, guns, and money

The shit has hit the fan

[rn701]

I was gambling in Havana - I took a little risk

Send lawyers, guns, and money

Dad, get me out of this

 

I'm hiding in Honduras - I'm a desperate man

Send lawyers, guns, and money

The shit has hit the fan

 

Exactly. (RIP Warren Zevon)

 

Everybody hates lawyers. Until they need one.

[Sal1950]

Exactly. (RIP Warren Zevon)

 

Everybody hates lawyers. Until they need one.

 

Yep, one hell of a dude!

On October 30, 2002, Zevon was featured on the Late Show with David Letterman as the only guest for the entire hour. The band played "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead" as his introduction. Zevon performed several songs and spoke at length about his illness. Zevon had been a frequent guest and occasional substitute bandleader on Letterman's television shows since Late Night was first broadcast in 1982. He noted, "I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." It was during this broadcast that, when asked by Letterman if he knew something more about life and death now, he first offered his oft-quoted insight on dying: "Enjoy every sandwich."

[Jud]

Very much of what I discuss is legally clear cut.

 

At any rate, I might not know what I don't know, but I do know what I do know.

 

And one thing I do know is that my lawyers aren't smug, self important jerks. And they don't bob and weave and confuse and obfuscate to run up billable hours.

 

Yep, that's what I was doing, running up billable hours. (?)

[rn701]

A hit dog hollers.

[Sal1950]

A hit dog hollers.

 

Huh?

[firedog]

Very much of what I discuss is legally clear cut.

 

At any rate, I might not know what I don't know, but I do know what I do know.

 

Nope. In this area, what you think you know, it's likely you actually don't.

 

And one thing I do know is that my lawyers aren't smug, self important jerks.

 

Takes one to know one?

[Teresa]

Hi Teresa,

 

Because of the legal posture of the case when it was decided, the court never reached factual matters such as to what extent ReDigi could ensure removal of the sold file from the seller's control.

 

What the case turned on was not any question of fact, but the court's agreement with the industry's legal position that a consumer making a copy of digital content they had purchased violated the music company's copyright. Because technically a computer must make a copy of a file whenever it is transferring that file, it didn't matter whether the seller deleted his file; just the act of sending the file to the buyer meant the seller's computer was making a copy, and the court agreed with the music company that making such a copy was legally unauthorized.

 

So as I've explained previously, the industry in ReDigi took a position contrary to the one it has tried to take publicly (and has tried to convince people is the law, though that is anything but settled), that it's keeping a copy for yourself that is the violation. Just making a copy is a violation, according to the result of the ReDigi case.

 

Technically this makes no sense at all, since just playing a file from a computer, iDevice, etc., involves a copy of the file contents being moved into RAM and then a DAC - after all, the original file isn't gone after you've played it, right? And of course the same is true when you spin a disc. So apparently any time you listen to digital music you've paid for, according to the ReDigi case, you're violating the music company's copyright. In fact this implicates a lot more than just listening to music, which is why many large digital content companies such as Google tried to submit "friend of the court" legal briefs, but the ReDigi court did not accept them.

 

Edit: One other point I wanted to make is that in these cases, the industry is pushing to have the law involving digital content look a lot different than copyright law involving other merchandise, and the courts are listening (unfortunately, in my view). If you decided to sell a necklace to a friend, don't you think it would be an absurd idea if the jewelry designer had a legal right to check whether you had "truly" sold it, or whether you borrowed it back, say for formal occasions? Do you feel it would be immoral, something akin to stealing, if you did borrow it back? Yet this is the sort of thing the music industry contends should be relevant in the realm of digital content.

 

Hi Jud,

 

If the above bolded sections of your post are referenced and tested in other court cases, this could not only make purchased music files illegal, but also simply watching YouTube videos. If I'm ever forced to delete my purchased digital downloads, I'm covered since 3/4th of my music are on actual official physical formats (SACDs, HDCDs, XRCDs, CDs, Blu-rays, etc.) as released by the recording companies. And I never lend music to friends.

 

If I remember correctly (no guarantee, see my signature below) the RIAA was originally against any type of copying of one format to another, I seem to remember a spokesperson back in the 1970's saying if one wants a copy of their LP to play on their walkman they should buy the prerecorded cassette.

[JoseNelson]

With all the music in the world at our fingertips...

 

Our own massive collections, Apple Music, Tidal, Qobuz, Bandcamp, Hundreds of sattelite radio channels, who knows how many internet radio channels, and more, all jusr a finger tap away...

 

I can't find some new music I want to listen to?!

 

(He says listening to ArchAndroid yet again...)

 

Try Adele and Edsheeran music album.

[Jud]

A hit dog hollers.

 

Huh?

 

I believe I'm being called a "dog" because I pointed out rn701's attempted insult that I am "running up billable hours" doesn't really make a lot of sense - who am I billing for our discussions in this thread?

 

This followed his insult that I slept through my law school classes (http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/why-heck-it-27421/index2.html#post507978), when I didn't answer his initial questions to his satisfaction. When I did discuss those questions further but didn't agree with rn701's view, that made me a smug, self important jerk (http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/why-heck-it-27421/index4.html#post509384).

 

rn701, I'm sure you're a lovely person, and please have a wonderful life. In the meantime I'm putting you on my ignore list, at least for a little while. Since you'll know I won't be reading what you write, you'll be able to stop coming up with insults for me and get back to chatting about audio. This I think will leave us both happier and the thread better off as a result.

[Jud]

Hi Jud,

 

If the above bolded sections of your post are referenced and tested in other court cases, this could not only make purchased music files illegal, but also simply watching YouTube videos.

 

Hi Teresa,

 

Yes, that's why big digital content companies like Google (owner of YouTube) wanted to file "friend of the court" briefs in the ReDigi case, but the court declined to accept those briefs.

 

If I remember correctly (no guarantee, see my signature below) the RIAA was originally against any type of copying of one format to another, I seem to remember a spokesperson back in the 1970's saying if one wants a copy of their LP to play on their walkman they should buy the prerecorded cassette.

 

Yep, and same with the famous Betamax case, where Universal Studios tried to keep Sony from selling VCRs that consumers could use to record TV shows to watch at another time.

 

We'll see how the fact that big companies like Google now have an interest in digital content distribution affects the future development of copyright law in this area.

[jeffmudrick]

Does this thread now have anything to do with the OP? Seems it deserves its own place.

[Jud]

Does this thread now have anything to do with the OP? Seems it deserves its own place.

 

We know you like streaming. What have you heard lately that's new and interesting?

[jabbr]

Hi Teresa,

 

Yes, that's why big digital content companies like Google (owner of YouTube) wanted to file "friend of the court" briefs in the ReDigi case, but the court declined to accept those briefs.

 

 

 

Yep, and same with the famous Betamax case, where Universal Studios tried to keep Sony from selling VCRs that consumers could use to record TV shows to watch at another time.

 

We'll see how the fact that big companies like Google now have an interest in digital content distribution affects the future development of copyright law in this area.

 

As you know a single case does not create uniform precedent -- but I entirely share your concerns! People need to stand up and loudly make our views known to the legislature. Apple is in a great position here because it is involved in all ends of this. Likewise Google. Hopefully "don't be Evil" sticks.

 

In any case I can imagine that Scalia might be an audiophile at home (just speculating) and he might have installed an expensive high end music server. (I'm hearing Opera in the background). I can just imagine the look on his face: "So you are suggesting that when I listened to Puccini at home last night that I made an infringing copy?" ... "Yeah Reid intended that."

 

(1) http://lawandarts.org/article/prefaces-to-scaliaginsburg-a-gentle-parody-of-operatic-proportions/

[firedog]

We know you like streaming. What have you heard lately that's new and interesting?

 

Not answering for jeffmudrick, but just at random played the first album that popped up in Tidal that I'd never heard of: "All I Need"- an album by a young UK soloist, Lousa Rose Allen, who goes by the "band" name "Foxes". Not my cup of tea stylistically, but well done modern pop by an obviously talented singer and songwriter.

 

I certainly would be totally unaware of it if it wasn't for Tidal.

[rn701]

Yeah, apologies to Jud and everyone else for getting pissy and derailing the thread. Not my usual style, this is just a long time sore spot for me. I'll leave it alone.

 

Peace out, carry on.

[jeffmudrick]

We know you like streaming. What have you heard lately that's new and interesting?

 

John Cale has a new release, a reissue of Music for a New Society both in original form and a newly reimagined one. I'm not so crazy about the new version but find the original (new to me) astonishingly good.

 

The release of the Velvet Underground's 1969 Matrix tapes is superb.

 

The new Judy Collins album is excellent and led me to greater explore the Fred Neil catalog. I've also been spending time with John Fahey's catalog (a Kottke fan) . Both Kottke and Fahey sound wonderful on my system.

 

My favorite release of of 2015 was James McMurtry's Complicated Game. His boy Curtis work is also superb. Ditto Steve Earl's boy Justin Townes Earle.

 

I've got all the 2L catalog favorited and am starting to shuffle the through that in preparation for all the MQA discussion.

 

Likewise I have a best of 2015 playlist which is a compilation of best ofs from Uncut, No Depression, Pitchfork, Rolling Stone etc.

[firedog]

We know you like streaming. What have you heard lately that's new and interesting?

 

GoGo Penguin - ManMadeObject

The Pixel

Badbadnotgood

The Bad Plus

 

For whatever reason, I often find new music I like in the "genre" of new bands that play some sort of combination of jazz/pop/hip-hop. I can connect to this stuff easily, unlike most new pop or hip hop. Why? Not sure. Maybe because it is a bit more sophisticated (less repetitive?) and is therefore more interesting to me than most new straight pop or hip-hop.

[jeffmudrick]

Here's a Best of 2015 playlist to shuffle through :

 

http://tidal.com/playlist/19d80029-e4f0-493e-ae28-a11c37f33c78

[Sal1950]

Yeah, apologies to Jud and everyone else for getting pissy and derailing the thread. Not my usual style, this is just a long time sore spot for me. I'll leave it alone.

 

Peace out, carry on.

 

Bet you been in divorce court, me too, twice! LOL

Peace Brother, Let us disagree in a civil manner.

[rn701]

Bet you been in divorce court, me too, twice! LOL

Peace Brother, Let us disagree in a civil manner.

 

Hah, I hear you. But just to clarify, the sore spot I mentioned is IP, not lawyers.

[Sal1950]

Hi Jud,

If the above bolded sections of your post are referenced and tested in other court cases, this could not only make purchased music files illegal, but also simply watching YouTube videos. If I'm ever forced to delete my purchased digital downloads, I'm covered since 3/4th of my music are on actual official physical formats (SACDs, HDCDs, XRCDs, CDs, Blu-rays, etc.) as released by the recording companies. And I never lend music to friends.

 

If I remember correctly (no guarantee, see my signature below) the RIAA was originally against any type of copying of one format to another, I seem to remember a spokesperson back in the 1970's saying if one wants a copy of their LP to play on their walkman they should buy the prerecorded cassette.

 

Tersa,

As poorly as the music labels have historically treated both it's artists and customers I really don't understand why you take all this stuff so seriously. Their only guiding light is greed. But I do respect your convictions.

[jhwalker]

As you know a single case does not create uniform precedent -- but I entirely share your concerns! People need to stand up and loudly make our views known to the legislature. Apple is in a great position here because it is involved in all ends of this. Likewise Google. Hopefully "don't be Evil" sticks.

 

In any case I can imagine that Scalia might be an audiophile at home (just speculating) and he might have installed an expensive high end music server. (I'm hearing Opera in the background). I can just imagine the look on his face: "So you are suggesting that when I listened to Puccini at home last night that I made an infringing copy?" ... "Yeah Reid intended that."

 

(1) Prefaces to Scalia/Ginsburg: A (Gentle) Parody of Operatic Proportions – Journal of Law and the Arts

 

On the other end of the spectrum, Ginsberg is a *huge* opera / classical music fan. Saw her thoroughly enjoying the Richard Tucker Gala from the audience last night