|
Anonymous
|
Date: July 27, 2000 @ 1:56 PM
Wha ¿? is that judge on something. Its not portable granted but if it doesnt record then what does it do ¿?
Watch his response will be something like the sound card is the actual recording/processing device.
oi ¡! |
|
Fletch
|
Date: July 27, 2000 @ 2:05 PM
interesting... |
|
scripto
|
Date: July 27, 2000 @ 2:29 PM
hmm! This makes me wonder and question this judges competence as the supreme authority in this trial. I can`t think of anything in my house that would *qualify* as a "home recording device" more than my pc. This is just getting crazy and obviously this judge isn`t very tech/computer savy.
Ryan |
|
RamenBoy
|
Date: July 27, 2000 @ 2:47 PM
Check out this link:
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/bchafy/mp3.html
These are homebrew stereo-rack-style MP3 players that run Linux or Windows. In other words, they are PCs. Slap a CDR in one of these, and you have a home recording device by any definition.
For example, this one:
http://w3.one.net/~fergy/
It is WinAMP running on Win98 with a file server. This guy downlaods files straight from Napster onto his HOME RECORDING DEVICE.
Word. |
|
rob_n
|
Date: July 27, 2000 @ 3:25 PM
Maybe they should decrease the amount of years in law school and let "to be judges/lawyers" live in the real world for a while before taking on supreme court. |
|
pressf8
|
Date: July 27, 2000 @ 3:34 PM
Its ridiculous to say that a PC is not a 'home recording device' as it stores music the same way a tape player, DAT, MD, or stand-alone CD-R deck would.
And they can even be portable--get a laptop. (Like my stereo is portable...)
Brian
http://www.screwmetallica.org
boycott the RIAA:
http://www.screwmetallica.org/boycott-riaa.htm
|
|
Anonymous
|
Date: July 27, 2000 @ 4:36 PM
Hmmm...
Does this mean that TiVo and the Philips Digital video recorder are gonna be sued by the MPAA and all the TV stations?
I guess digital video recorders are illegal then 'cause they all use hard drives.
I have no idea what drugs that judge is on, but send some on...they must be GREAT!! |
|
jark
|
Date: July 27, 2000 @ 4:41 PM
The reasoning as I see it is that computers were not designed for the sole purpose of being home recording devices and that is what led her to make that particular decision. After all, stereos are DESIGNED for the purpose of allowing home recording whereas computers WERE not; a shift in mentality has changed that idea altogether and that is what has this judge sitting far back from normal people.
I expect Boies to take advantage of this when asking for the last minute stay of execution.
--[ jark ]-- |
|
RamenBoy
|
Date: July 27, 2000 @ 4:51 PM
This one's supposedly out "mid-summer", but I think it also qualifies easily as a "home recording device":
http://hardware.mp3.com/hardware/individual/portable/2847.html |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: July 27, 2000 @ 5:28 PM
You must remember that there are plenty of precedent court settlements that specifically make things legal because the computer isn't created with intent to be a recording device. Not that I am on the side of the ruling, but there is precedent for the judge to work with.
|
|
JustinHall
|
Date: July 27, 2000 @ 9:49 PM
Why do you complain about it not being a home recording device. It doesn't restrict us in anyway. This was decided in the Diamond Rio vs RIAA case i do believe. Thats how they proved they were exempt from the home recording act. Since Napster is on a computer which is not a home recording device it could be ruled exempt also.
Also a computer is not a home recording device. It can fuction as a home recording device but that is not most computers main fuction. |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: July 27, 2000 @ 10:24 PM
I DINT HAVE TIME TO READ ALL OF YOUR BEUTIFUL NICE COMMENTS BUT I GOT A FEW WORDS,
1.THE JUDGE -- OLD ASS BITCH PLAYASSS
2.THE RIAA COULD JUST SUCK MY BIGGGGG COCKKKKKKKKKCCCCC
2.GET SCOUR AFTER FRIDAY
3.IM GOING TO MISS NAPSTER MFFMFMFFMFF :( :( |
|
RyanS
|
Date: July 28, 2000 @ 9:41 AM
I use my computer as a recording device, not only for audio, but video as well. I don't own a VCR, and my computer has DVD and a TV Tuner, so it's much easier to play and record on my computer. Quite a few years ago, you could've probably won the argument that a computer wasn't a recording device. But with sound cards, high-end video cards, capture, and all such, you can't say that anymore! I smell something fishy here! |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: July 28, 2000 @ 10:15 AM
*cough* vote of no confidence *cough*
That goes for the RIAA as well |
|
cesard
|
Date: July 28, 2000 @ 1:32 PM
The what the heck is a TIVO?
It has hard drives and acts like a VCR to record TV programs.
WHo is this Judge? Some 95 year old derelict with a lifetime appointment
Please! |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: July 28, 2000 @ 1:39 PM
The only people that are greedy, are the people that want to pay for music that artists put their effort into making.You fuckin poor ass losers
|
|
RamenBoy
|
Date: July 28, 2000 @ 2:37 PM
So for a computer to classify as a "home recording device" its primary function must be to make home recordings? Okay, not that I agree with that, but for the sake of argument, let's just say that's true.
What, then, is the primary function of a computer? Is there a single, universal, primary function of every computer?
Doubtful.
More likely, the primary function of a computer is to perform the function it is primarily used for. Circular reasoning? Sure, but computers are very abstract tools.
If I take a computer and load server software on it, it's called a "server". It's a computer whose primary function is to serve data. By this logic, a "serving device".
Now, I take this computer and use it to hack into the GOP, redirecting the majority of their funding to NORML as an anonymous donation, that computer is no longer a server. Why? Well, because it's a hacking device! At least, they ruled that way when they finally got Mitnick out of the slammer. Anything with a microchip (technically, even a microwave) was out of reach - a potential hacking device.
But wait! The primary function of that computer was to serve - hacking the GOP was a secondary function.
Huh?
Oh well, the argument is moot anyway. I've got over an hour worth of music on here already that I recorded from my house on my non-home-recording-device computer.
-RamenBoy http://ramenboy.dmusic.com/ |
|
midnitehours
|
Date: July 28, 2000 @ 3:55 PM
My computer is a recording device it can make cds ya sure it can just ask all those people who i gave copies of metalica's cd and guess where i got the songs from!!
And hey for all of u that say i didn't pay for it well
#1 it shows that i'm a hell of a lot smarter than u
#2 ya i did i paid 20 cents per blank cd which is what 4 times the amount is costs record company to make one?? while cds are being sold for what 15- 20 dollars
#3 It was private stuff i made em for ppl i knew (for 2 secs) |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: July 28, 2000 @ 4:00 PM
I wonder if the riaa payed off the judge? |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: July 31, 2000 @ 2:43 PM
one question, what would the RIAA consider a "home recording device"? |
|
Navigation
