www.allmusic.com

1/22/05 9:51:04 AM

Maybe a list of your favorites would help too.

Something similar to [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=122313|122313] with more of a UK-or EU-slant might help.

Tower Records used to (maybe still does if they're still in business) have kiosks where you could listen to some CDs and decide whether one was worth buying. But unless you have some idea of what bands you like, you'll need to spend many hours going through them. Who has the time? Similarly, a music web site is much more useful if you have a general idea of what might be worth trying before you start listening.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #191,390

1/24/05 2:38:11 PM

At least YOU understand

what I'm trying to say

But unless you have some idea of what bands you like, you'll need to spend many hours going through them. Who has the time? Similarly, a music web site is much more useful if you have a general idea of what might be worth trying before you start listening.

lincoln
"Windows XP has so many holes in its security that any reasonable user will conclude it was designed by the same German officer who created the prison compound in "Hogan's Heroes." - Andy Ihnatko, Chicago Sun-Times
[link|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net|contact me]

Post #191,407

by CRConrad

1/24/05 5:01:08 PM

We all UNDERSTAND; you just don't want to ADMIT Ben is right

Post #191,498

1/25/05 9:49:22 AM

YOU UNDERSTAND NOTHING

Hypothetical situation:

We're all at Beep's Bash. He brings out a handgun, has a target at the end of the yard, and says, "Let's see who's the best shot." Everybody takes a turn unloading a clip at the bulls eye. Ben_Tilly takes his turn, is a really bad shot; in fact, several of his bullets miss the target completely and travel several yards and even a full block away. One hits a little girl playing in her backyard sandbox. In a blink of an eye, she falls over, shot through the heart, dead.

Cops come around, investigate the bullet's trajectory, and follow it back to Beep's. After questioning all of the suspects, they conclude Ben_Tilly was the shooter and arrest him for murder. He's in a state that, like Texas, has and eagerly uses the death penalty. Ben_Tilly goes before a judge, begging to not be put to death for murder. "Your Honor," says Ben, "I didn't mean to hurt anyone! I didn't intend to murder anybody! I'm so sorry!"

The prosecution wants a murder charge, but Ben's defense lawyer fights for a manslaughter two charge, because there was no intention to cause harm. According to you and Ben, it doesn't matter -- intention is irrelevant to the end result. So, while he has a chance to get 10 to 20 years, both of you want him to be strapped to a gurney and get a lethal injection, no chance for a stay of execution, because the intent, which defines the crime, has no bearing on the outcome of the case.

Right?

Post #191,502

by ChrisR

1/25/05 9:57:11 AM

Well, the analogy is a bit over the top...

...but it serves the purpose. Whether Ben intended to "do harm" or not, he did harm. The question is not whether he is guilty or not, it's a question of the severity of punishment.

So, yes, there is a violation of copyright. And, yes, it's unlikely that you'll get the maximum penalty. But, yes, it is at the discretion of the judicial system to set the appropriate punishment based on the circumstances surrounding the violation.

Post #191,510

by CRConrad

1/25/05 10:29:57 AM

Right? No, wrong, as usual. ('Cause you're not only cheap...

...you're stupid, too. (Not that this is anything new; we all already knew that, too.)

In your stupid analogy, what Ben IS DOING is, just shooting at a target; he is not INTENTIONALLY shooting AT THE GIRL.

What you are doing, though, is NOT "lah-dih-dah, I'm somehow just magically 'trying out' these pieces of music or film"; that's not technically possible. What you ARE doing is, IN ORDER TO "try out" pieces of music or film, you are INTENTIONALLY DOWNLOADING them WITHOUT PAYING.

Hardly as accidental as Ben's hypothetical shooting in your example, now is it? "Oh look, this somehow appeared on my hard disk!", like? Not very likely, bubba. It's there because YOU, fully INTENTIONALLY, downloaded it -- TOOK it.

So yes, in your example Ben should only be charged with unintentional manslaughter; but no, in your own actual behaviour, you ought to be charged with intentional copyright violation. They're not the same thing at all; as an example, that sucked watermelons through a drinking straw.

But, hey, that was only to be expected, from someone as stupid as you.

[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)

Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575|Ashton Brown]

Post #191,515

1/25/05 10:39:15 AM

Full points for creativity

None for accuracy.

If you wanted to make the analogy more accurate, suppose that I knew that I had horrible aim. Suppose further that I had a long history of similar accidents, that wasn't the first, second, or even tenth girl that I'd killed in the same way.

If I entered into the shooting contest aware that someone was likely to wind up dead, but I was too caught up in the competition to care, then no court in the nation would care much that I said I wasn't intending to kill someone. I'd be classified as a willful repeat offender for intentionally engaging in a course of action that was likely to kill someon. Hopefully the judge would not be inclined towards leniency.

And there is the difference. When you go on a binary newsgroup, it isn't a tragic accident if you violate a copyright, it is the expected result. No matter whether or not you were doing it to violate copyright, you can't legitimately claim to be unaware that copyrights were going to be violated. But in the scenario that you painted for me, it would have been a tragic accident. And if I pleaded that I had no idea that I was going to kill someone, that plea is believable.

Regards,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #191,816

by static

1/26/05 8:54:09 PM

A query on the premise.

Does downloading from alt.binaries.* always involve an infringement of copyright? Why? Isn't it possible for stuff to be legitimately posted?

Wade.

Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed

Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please

-- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne.

Post #191,830

by n3jja

1/26/05 9:57:09 PM

Not bloody likely. Willing to bet 95%+ copyright violations.

Post #192,311

1/30/05 10:11:59 PM

Not everything there violates copyright

and dickwads like Pwhysall and Ben_Tilly are too arrogant to accept that simple fact.

Guess they never have heard of freeware and shareware.

Post #192,318

by n3jja

1/30/05 11:00:26 PM

Did I say everything? Learn to fucking read.

and dickwads like Pwhysall and Ben_Tilly are too arrogant to accept that simple fact.

Guess they never have heard of freeware and shareware.

Hey, got a clue for you, dickwad:

Freeware and shareware are available other places than usenet.

And I'll clarify it for you, since you don't seem to get it:

I'm willing to bet that 95%+ of what you see on alt.binaries.* is copyrighted material.

Freeware and shareware don't need alt.binaries.* to get exposure on the web. Get a fucking grip.

Unlike you, I don't have a problem admitting my attitude about whether I'm violating copyright or not. Here's a hint; I really don't give a shit.

Oh, and here's another clue for you:

With all the hosting sites available on the internet, independent artists can put up their stuff for download any time they choose. They don't fucking need alt.binaries.* to do it!

If you really want all those alt.binaries.* groups, then I'd suggest a subscription to GigaNews. Certainly nothing missing there.

Post #192,886

2/3/05 1:54:31 PM

I never said they NEED alt.binaries

they are available there, which saves me time and energy in searching.

And as I have previously stated, "violation" is not the point of contention, it's the "intent" that is the focal point.

Learn to read yourself, dickwad.

Post #192,942

by n3jja

2/3/05 9:50:39 PM

You really do need a Glass Navel, don't you?

If you download from alt.binaries.*, knowing full well that it's 95%+ assured it's copyrighted material, ............

.... then it's fucking intentional!!

And I thought Rick Moen was a royal asshole........

Welcome to the head of the class........

Post #192,309

1/30/05 10:07:19 PM

You "suppose" a lot

to word the topic in your favor.

I could just as easily say "Suppose that Usenet CHARGED for their downloads, and suppose that someone introduced a way to circumvent the payment system, which I them used ocassionally" then I MIGHT be falling under the twisted analogy that you fabricate.

Ben_Tilly whines:

No matter whether or not you were doing it to violate copyright, you can't legitimately claim to be unaware that copyrights were going to be violated.

And nowhere did I claim that I was unaware of copyrights nor unaware that my ocassional acts would violate such - the whole topic was and still is INTENT, which you're glossing over to suit your purposes.

Post #192,327

1/30/05 11:49:06 PM

Silly question for you

Suppose that a burglar was being tried for intentionally breaking and entering. And his defence was that he didn't intend to break and enter, that was just the result of his trying to take the jewelry. Do you think that that defence would go very far?

The comparison to the current situation is straightforward. You claim to have no intent to break copyright, you just want to enjoy all of the benefits of doing so, like you have many times before.

Regards,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #192,889

2/3/05 2:06:06 PM

Are you for fucking real???

This whole thread started because I was promised a feature before I purchased a service, which I later discovered would not be provided as promised. I was given an ORAL CONTRACT - they offered, and I accepted. Then they reneged. I now have to PAY SOMEONE ELSE to provide that which I expected from the original business transaction. They broke the contract, which now I am fighting them over by refusing to pay termination fees as stated within the contract. Hey, they broke it first; therefore, I'm not bound by it anymore.

Why are you so fucking hung up on violation of copyright? I, like hundreds of others in this community, have written 1000s of software programs, whose copyright belongs to the employer at time of creation. I, like these other hundreds, have written apps later in time minorly or significantly based upon previous works; in fact, dozens if not hundreds are perfect duplicates of earlier works. They, according to your viewpoint, are violations of copyright. Are all of us going to be thrown into the slammer just to satisfy your holier-than-thou attitude?

I don't intend to violate copyright; however, if I do, I don't fucking care. And before you keep being so childishly anal about it, go jump down the throats of the thousands of people who POST these files since they are violating copyright FIRST.

Post #192,943

by n3jja

2/3/05 9:54:01 PM

More so than you, apparently.

Post #192,312

1/30/05 10:21:37 PM

tell me Ben_Tilly

have you ever been in a debate where you DIDN'Treword everything, at every opportunity, to be twisted to favor only your way of (and I use this word loosely) thinking?

Results are not the same as intent.

Hey, I got a great idea: why don't you police all of the Usenet groups and hound the people who POST files that you think violate copyright? That ought to keep you busy for a while.

Post #192,315

by broomberg

1/30/05 10:36:02 PM

I find myself in a difficult position

Lincoln bitches about not have access to alt.binary.
Some people here jump to the conclusion that
Lincoln will be using the desired access to
violate copyright.

Lincoln comes back with a variety of 1/2 assed
responses, analogies, etc, none which are convincing,
but it seems the core point has been missed.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Note the word "proven".

If there is ANY legal usage of such groups, than
the assumption must be made that they will be
used legally.

So from my point of view, the correct response
to all accusers should be:

Fuck off and die.

Hey Linc: You win.
You don't need to explain anything.

Post #192,316

1/30/05 10:57:16 PM

I'm arguning "A" and they're arguing "B"

My point was "intent" - I don't specifically intend to violate copyright and, as I'm sure you aware of, not everything posted in those groups are violations of copyright. They're arguing the "result" - downloading some files from some groups are violations of copyright

which I haven't denied in any way shape or form.

There are many files posted which aren't available anywhere else, even after Googling for them. Amazon doesn't sell everything, right? So, according to certain IWETHEYers, to avoid violating copyright I must deny myself access to some files until such time that they MAY become available by the copyright holders, even if that DOESN'Toccur within my lifetime.

Post #192,319

1/30/05 11:13:42 PM

Hey, this is Flame Quarantine.

No logic allowed. And anyway, you're wrong.

Peter was the first to make the comment about copyright. But, if one looks at the [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=190349|post] in question one also sees:

Anyway, Usenet is so 1996. BitTorrent, baby :-)

He amplifies on that suggestion later in the thread.

Lincoln getting upset about what others say they think he does or doesn't do with alt.binaries.*.*.*.*, and others arguing about copyright infringement or lack thereof, doesn't change the fact that he doesn't have access to the alt.binaries newsgroups. Peter suggested a way around that problem with linc's current ISP even if they don't change their policies.

A helpful suggestion from a limey. Will wonders ever cease?

Being piled on isn't much fun. Being able to detect irony and humor is a good skill to have, too.

Let's put away the flame-throwers and 50-caliber hollow-point bullets dipped in pigs blood for a while, OK?

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #192,330

1/31/05 12:11:26 AM

You'll note that this is not a court

And we are under no obligation to make stupid assumptions.

As Jim said, while it is theoretically possible to haunt alt.binarys.* without violating copyrights, it is bloody unlikely. Furthermore Lincoln has pretty directly admitted that he does violate copyrights, and knows that he violates copyrights, the only point that he's trying to argue is whether his repeated violation of copyrights is intentional or not.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #192,332

by n3jja

1/31/05 12:33:48 AM

And he already knows the answer to that.

He just won't give it up.

Post #192,890

2/3/05 2:08:01 PM

2/3/05 2:08:31 PM

Neither will Ben_Tilly

Tho for the life of me I can't figure why he's being so fucking anal about.

Edited by lincoln Feb. 3, 2005, 02:08:31 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #192,944

by n3jja

2/3/05 9:54:54 PM

I'm thinking of three words.... Pot... Kettle.....Black....

Post #192,947

by folkert

2/3/05 10:10:09 PM

meself, Two vessels and a color; Pot, Kettle, Day-Glo Orange

No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp|source]

Post #192,329

1/31/05 12:07:06 AM

Of course I have

As for your stupid suggestion, you mistake me for someone who cares about whether you're violating copyright. I don't. I merely dislike hypocrisy on the topic. I also dislike watching people who are apparently intelligent and over 15 substituting wish-fulfilment for logic.

Sincerely,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #192,891

2/3/05 2:12:30 PM

There you go again

since you refuse to see the distinction between intent and the act, and refuse to admit it, you're refusing to leave your wish-fulfillment fantasy viewpoint.

My analogy stands even if you're not intelligent enough, or have the balls, to accept it.

Post #192,899

2/3/05 2:45:32 PM

The distinction between the intent and the act...

...is the difference between manslaughter and murder. The one tends to incur a sentence of five or so years; the other tends to incur a life sentence.

But then, you're a fucking idiot, so you wouldn't be able to make that distinction.

Post #193,253

2/6/05 3:49:25 PM

And you're an arrogant limesucker

[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=191498|I made that distinction perfectly clear here] which you so willfully ignore.

BTW - Here it is, almost one week later, and I'm still waiting for you to come up with a better analogy, since you didn't like mine.

Post #193,256

2/6/05 3:54:02 PM

Didn't we establish that you're an idiot?

Yes, I think we did.

See, your act cannot be committed without the intent. Sorry, but if you download something you know to be copyrighted without the consent of the copyright holder, then you intend to violate that copyright. It's intrinsic to the act.

Your crappy analogy has no such intrinsic intent component.

You may now fuck off.

Post #191,533

1/25/05 11:50:08 AM

Worst. Analogy. Ever.

Post #191,534

1/25/05 11:52:06 AM

I thought car analogies took that prize.

Post #191,536

1/25/05 11:58:25 AM

They did. Linc just took that shark and jumped it with this.

Post #191,542

1/25/05 12:27:02 PM

Oh, ok. Congrats Lincoln! >:-)

Post #192,310

1/30/05 10:09:20 PM

Go use BitTorrent you encephalous lout!

Post #192,331

1/31/05 12:32:53 AM

I do :-)

[link|http://www.legaltorrents.com|http://www.legaltorrents.com]

Post #192,893

2/3/05 2:13:45 PM

Nice URL name

calling themselves "legal" to give away something that will be used to do illegal acts - I give them a high five.

Post #192,898

2/3/05 2:43:43 PM

Read the site, shithead.

It's a site that provides trackers for stuff that has been put there with the copyright holder's explicit consent.

You're a fucking idiot.

But then, we knew that, "douchebag".

Post #193,257

2/6/05 3:57:03 PM

So according to you

absolutely EVERYTHING in Usenet's alt.binaries are violations of copyright, and that NOBODY has ever posted files of freeware, shareware or works that they're freely giving away.

To which I say "Prove it". Since that's your position, back it up.

Oh, and why would someone give away a program that allows you to get chunks of extremely large files from multiple machines at the same time to be reassembled upon your machine and not expect it to be used to download copyrighted content like large audio and video files?

"Honest officer, I just gave her the loaded gun - I didn't know that she'd actually SHOOT someone with it!"

Douchebag yourself.

Post #193,259

2/6/05 4:00:30 PM

2/6/05 4:03:44 PM

Deja vu!

Lincoln's being an idiot again!

In my post are some words. They convey a concept.

That concept is not what you are replying to.

I suggest that you go and look at those words again, this time using the "English" language to turn my digital glyph-markings into concepts.

In short: I never said nor implied anything that you claim in your post - apart from the "you're a fucking idiot" part, and [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=181820|douche bag], of course.

[Edit: factual correction]

Edited by pwhysall Feb. 6, 2005, 04:03:44 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #193,284

by folkert

2/6/05 5:37:23 PM

READ ME IN MY POSTS!

No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp|source]

Post #193,264

2/6/05 4:26:11 PM

Yawn.

I think you've made your point.

What are you doing to get the access you want? Getting out of your contract and the sundry issues may take a while.

[link|http://www.nuthinbutnews.com/signup.htm|This] place will give you 5 GB of binary downloads for $5.95/mo. Sign up for a month, get your fix, then cancel your account and move on. You've probably used more than $6 in bile here. ;-)

I'm sure there are other places out there with similar services. I've not used any of them (my ISP's Usenet access is fine for my needs).

Hope you get your issues with SBC resolved fairly easily. But I hope more that you start to take offense less easily. Blowing up at people isn't a way to get them to change their mind or understand your view.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #193,271

by admin

2/6/05 5:01:18 PM

I'm sorry...

One may have missed noticing the name of this forum.

Oh, and by the way, "douchebag".

HTH!

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #193,277

2/6/05 5:21:25 PM

Yeah. I know.

But flames are meant to be short and intense. Not drawn out over 3 weeks...

A flamefest that is drawn out over 3 weeks is more of like riding shotgun through [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkina_Faso|Upper Volta] in daemon's rusted-out 1974 Chevy Vega [link|http://www.stationwagon.com/gallery/1974_Chevy_Vega.html|Kammback] while he plays [link|http://www.diacenter.org/km/musiccd.html|The Most Unwanted Song] over and over and over ... than a [link|http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/zen-writings/qingjing.htm|true flamefest].

HTH!

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #193,286

by daemon

2/6/05 5:40:34 PM

go Ouaga yourself :-)

I love her dearly, far beyond any creature I've ever known, and I can prove it, for never once in almost seventy years of married life have I taken her by the throat. Mind you, it's been a near thing once or twice.
George Macdonald Frasier
Clearwater highschool marching band [link|http://www.chstornadoband.org/|http://www.chstornadoband.org/]

Post #193,310

2/6/05 7:40:57 PM

They are?

Tell that to the good folks in [link|http://www.offroaders.com/album/centralia/centralia.htm|Centralia]. If you can find any.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #193,312

2/6/05 7:57:26 PM

Deja vu? #192151. I don't think the coal fire was intended..

Post #193,313

2/6/05 8:00:52 PM

The worst fires aren't intended...

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #193,327

2/6/05 9:57:49 PM

Yes, but if the arsonists return to the scene over and over

It's like, like if there was this really bad arsonist car analogy and like this really bad arsonist car ran over a cliff over and over again like into a coal pit like, you know, like in "Groundhog Day" when like Bill Murray was like trying to make today like change into tomorrow but like it wouldn't because he like didn't understand yet (and I don't like want to give it like away), like and the arsonist truck like wasn't destroyed even though it like was because it was like an arsonist car analogy.

This flame thread would be like that.

But thankfully, it isn't.

Cheers,
Scott.
:-)

Post #193,343

2/7/05 12:56:58 AM

But who is Bill Murray? (And what lesson?)

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #193,369

2/7/05 7:38:40 AM

Eh? 27kB

Post #193,396

2/7/05 11:36:48 AM

I meant in this flame war

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #193,397

2/7/05 11:38:13 AM

The flaming participants.

Post #193,398

2/7/05 11:40:05 AM

Which *one* of us?

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #193,399

2/7/05 11:41:08 AM

Could fit several, perhaps. Why do you ask?

Post #193,400

2/7/05 11:48:58 AM

Very simply...

I'm trying to get you to sucker you into indicating which side you belong to, so that you become a participant and can get roundly flamed by the other side.

Why else would you think? :-P

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #193,401