OTE: DCTEdit v0.04 [1]
Should it be illegal to have roms and emulations of older systoms or even of the n64 and psx if u own one personally I don't think it should its a lot cheaper to get it off the web (free)

... AD&D Famous Last Words: "Glad it's over with. I'm taking off my armour."

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Wein_Df to All on Wed Apr 19 2000 03:05 pm

OTE: DCTEdit v0.04 [1]
Should it be illegal to have roms and emulations of older systoms or even of the n64 and psx if u own one personally I don't think it should its a l cheaper to get it off the web (free)

... AD&D Famous Last Words: "Glad it's over with. I'm taking off my armour.

These kind of arcuments always lean tword whatever side of the table you are sitting on.

If you have an intrest in the company's that produce the product in question, then you will say yes,. it should be...

If you just want the product for free, then you will say it should not be...

But if everything that you wanted for free was avail for free, you would eventually have nothing at all.

If you want to be a pirate, thats fine by me, i'll admit it, i just downloaded office 2000 profesional edition... but that is a personal choice, is it rong, yes, i know that. and i know that if everybodey did it, there would certonly be no more office 2000. Personaly , i think that it should be illegal, and i really dont know why anybodey would even consider asking if it should or shouldent be.

-tinman

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Digital Man to Tinman on Wed Jun 07 2000 10:36 pm

Except break Copyright laws. There's no "license agreement" when you buy a b either, but that doesn't give you the right to xerox it and give to your friends.

No, but you do have a right to xerox it and use the copy yourself. I used to do exactly this with the Workshop Manual for my car (back when I used to tune my own engines). The xerox would get torn and stained with grease and dirt and when it was illegible I'd make a new copy from the original book.

You also have a right to lend your copy of the book to friends and family, if you choose to. The DMCA now empowers the publisher to deny you the right to lend the boog to another. You can't even _discuss_ the book with a friend any more.

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Digital Man to Tinman on Wed Jun 07 2000 10:36 pm

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Tinman to Hax0r on Wed Jun 07 2000 10:16 pm

So, basicly thouse software licences dont hold any watter (ocording to o anyway), The software vendor would need you to sign/agree to the licence store befor the purchase, or else it's yours to do what you want with.

Except break Copyright laws. There's no "license agreement" when you buy a b either, but that doesn't give you the right to xerox it and give to your friends.

Rob

Yeah, thats true, but what about the kid who xerox's a few pictures and articals out of his encyclopiedia bertanica for his school report?, he's not distro-ing it, he's just using it in the way that he wants to use it. after-all he does own it.

Thats the big debate over the whole dvd thing, why should the company who produces the dvd limit you from playing it on a "non-approved operating system" or for that matter, why should thay limit a european dvd from playing until 6 months after the US dvd version was released?? these poeple own this product, and thay did not formaly agree to these restrictions (which have nothing to do with copyright) befor the purchase, therefor the restrictions are not legal.

Or something... ;-)

·.'·tinman·'.·

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Amcleod to Hax0r on Thu Jun 08 2000 04:54 am

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Hax0r to Tinman on Wed Jun 07 2000 09:27 pm

Well I have to agree with the philosophy, and I agree that you have the r to choose to break the law and pirate that ware -- but, what exactly is w with duplicating *ANYTHING* that you legitimately own for personal use?

Blatant pieces of kiss-up, legislative injustice like the DCMA aside...

So long as you are doing it _for_your_own_use_ I don't think there's anythin wrong with it. If you want to take all your Van Halen CD's and mix up your "Best Of" disk on CD-R that's fine. It's when you start giving them away or selling them that you are essentially crossing the line.

Crossing the line or not, there will always be pi8s out there, a classic independent example is [ME] ;-), Corperations take this into consideration and thay figure that in as part of the cost of the production of the product.

Its just that now with everything being digital, and so many poeple getting hooked up with high speed connections that the big guys are starting to worry about it. If the music industry is able to manipulate (purchase) the legal system and get laws passed to outlaw services like napster, and the DVD-CCA/MPAA gets laws passed to outlaw the LINKING of systems which contain "illegal" material the internet will certonly not be the same place that we all know today.

If you ask me, pi8s are shooting themselves in the foot by taking there activities into the mainstream [i.e napster] it's almost like thay don't realises that what thay are doing is really illegal. "in the old days" SysOps and warez groups had to be compulsivly carefull for fear of a rade on there houses. These days i guess poeple just don't care <shrug>

·.'·tinman·'.·

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Tinman to Amcleod on Thu Jun 08 2000 02:35 pm

If you ask me, pi8s are shooting themselves in the foot by taking there activities into the mainstream [i.e napster] it's almost like thay don't realises that what thay are doing is really illegal. "in the old days" SysOp and warez groups had to be compulsivly carefull for fear of a rade on there houses. These days i guess poeple just don't care <shrug>

You knmow, once upon a time you'd make six tapes of that new album for your friend. But no matter how good your turn-table the Signal/Noise ratio on the tapes was higher than on the original. Those six friends made six copies each, so now there were 42 pirated copies out there. And they were all of a less-than-mint quality, with the majority having the S/N ratio was _double_ bad. If you went another iteration you are talking 1296 tripple-poor tapes or a total of 1338 copies.

That was then. Now, the copies are digitally perfect. The copies of the copies are also digitally perfect. And so on and so forth. And you're not talking a thousand copies either. Thanks to the net, you're talking _millions_ of copies in a weekend!

Now, I work in an Intellectual Property industry. If I write a piece of software (or a song, or a novel) and I _choose_ to give it away, well that's my business. But if I sell copies of it for a buck a pop, and count on sales to bring in the dough to feed my family and get everyone a new Roller, then that's my business too. I don't think I'd be too pleased to discover that millions of copies were being given away with the thinly-veiled connivance of the Napster people!

Previously, it hasn't paid to chase up a few hundred people making low-quality tapes. After all, the real purchaser would say "No thanks, I'll get a genuine copy that sounds _good_!" so sales were not being affected too bad. But when you're talking _millions_ of people... it's another story! I think Metallica should select about 10,000 people and put them all in small-claims court for $500 each. (Select from the list of 300,000+ names of known pirates that they have, I mean.) They may not get any money - hell it might cost them money, but at least they would be making future pirates think twice. And a $50M case against Napster might cauyse a bit of a rucuss as well!

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Amcleod to Tinman on Thu Jun 08 2000 08:06 pm

Previously, it hasn't paid to chase up a few hundred people making low-quali tapes. After all, the real purchaser would say "No thanks, I'll get a genui copy that sounds _good_!" so sales were not being affected too bad. But whe you're talking _millions_ of people... it's another story! I think Metalli should select about 10,000 people and put them all in small-claims court for $500 each. (Select from the list of 300,000+ names of known pirates that th have, I mean.) They may not get any money - hell it might cost them money, at least they would be making future pirates think twice. And a $50M case against Napster might cauyse a bit of a rucuss as well!

Where exactly did matalica get the list of 300,000+ names of poeple who copied matalica songs???


And do you actually agree with them sueing napster?!?! i mean the implications of the presedent that would set would extend all over the place! Juston, I-drive, ect... ect... every online-storage company known would be put in jeoperdy!

·.'·tinman·'.·

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Tinman to Hax0r on Wed Jun 07 2000 10:16 pm

Legaly (some law that thay mentioned pertaining to ownership) outlines that the consumer must be presented with any legalities conserning a product BEFO the purchase is made, if the consumer is allowed to purchase an item without agreeing to any conditions befor the monitary transaction takes place, the item's manufacutur cannot enforce any new conditions because the consumer i already the owner of the product.

heh, thats actually kind of interesting...I think I would find much enjoyment if I picked up a software box and it had the following label on it:

"SPA & BSA WARNING: Purchase of Computer Software causes cancer of the wallet and strips you of your constitutional right of private ownership."

Seriously, how can they ever hope to enforce a software license agreement?

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Amcleod to Hax0r on Thu Jun 08 2000 04:54 am

So long as you are doing it _for_your_own_use_ I don't think there's anythin wrong with it. If you want to take all your Van Halen CD's and mix up your "Best Of" disk on CD-R that's fine. It's when you start giving them away or selling them that you are essentially crossing the line.

Ok, lets take it one step further...how about playing your rom dump on an emulator, or even sharing your metallica mp3's with other metallica fans who own the album? I don't quite see how any one can restrict these types of behavior....and cracking down on college kids or emulation websites is not the answer

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Hax0r to Tinman on Thu Jun 08 2000 10:25 pm

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Tinman to Hax0r on Wed Jun 07 2000 10:16 pm

Legaly (some law that thay mentioned pertaining to ownership) outlines t the consumer must be presented with any legalities conserning a product B the purchase is made, if the consumer is allowed to purchase an item with agreeing to any conditions befor the monitary transaction takes place, th item's manufacutur cannot enforce any new conditions because the consume already the owner of the product.

heh, thats actually kind of interesting...I think I would find much enjoymen if I picked up a software box and it had the following label on it:

"SPA & BSA WARNING: Purchase of Computer Software causes cancer of the walle and strips you of your constitutional right of private ownership."

Seriously, how can they ever hope to enforce a software license agreement?

It is put there as a scair tactic, to give them that initial edge over 99.8% of the poeple who "break the agreement", but as rob pointed out that is differant then a copyright infrindgement which is something that is enforcable even without an agreement.

·.'·tinman·'.·

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Hax0r to Amcleod on Thu Jun 08 2000 10:28 pm

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Amcleod to Hax0r on Thu Jun 08 2000 04:54 am

So long as you are doing it _for_your_own_use_ I don't think there's anyt wrong with it. If you want to take all your Van Halen CD's and mix up yo "Best Of" disk on CD-R that's fine. It's when you start giving them away selling them that you are essentially crossing the line.

Ok, lets take it one step further...how about playing your rom dump on an emulator, or even sharing your metallica mp3's with other metallica fans who own the album? I don't quite see how any one can restrict these types of behavior....and cracking down on college kids or emulation websites is not t answer

It's funny, pearl jam is taking an interesting angle, thay are releasing 27 new albums which thay are calling "official bootlegs", each album will be of a differant live proformance (PJ has always encouraged the tapeing of live shows) but thay say the fans always wind up with low quality music, so thay are making it easyer for them to get it, and get it good.

It's not going to be possible to stop bootleging, but if your fans think of you as trying to help them out in that area there will be qwite a few who actually have a concions who will say "nah, these guys are cool, lets buy the album"... On the other hand, if you go turn in 300,000 of your fans, thay will only want to do it more, beacuse thay wont want to give you their money after what was done to them.

·.'·tinman·'.·

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Tinman to Hax0r on Thu Jun 08 2000 10:36 pm

It's funny, pearl jam is taking an interesting angle, thay are releasing 27 new albums which thay are calling "official bootlegs", each album will be of differant live proformance (PJ has always encouraged the tapeing of live sho but thay say the fans always wind up with low quality music, so thay are mak it easyer for them to get it, and get it good.

Now, I am not a musician -- but I would tend to think that if I was, and if a fan either bought bootlegged concert shows or recorded them him/herself that I would be flattered. I guess I just can't quite understand why sow many bands are opposed to this concept.

I guess it just proves to show that most musicians are not in it for the music but rather for the $$$.

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Hax0r to Tinman on Thu Jun 08 2000 10:52 pm

I guess it just proves to show that most musicians are not in it for the mus but rather for the $$$.

Some start out being in it for the music, but once thay get a taste of driving up to a 15 million dollar house in a 300,000 dollar car there intrests start to focus on differant things ;-)

Take Rob for example, Sure he likes synchronet now, but what happends after girth sells 20 milion copies??? will he still be running vertruan and updating this fine product? or will he be chasing napster users around the internet?

<evil grin>

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Tinman to Amcleod on Thu Jun 08 2000 09:35 pm

Where exactly did matalica get the list of 300,000+ names of poeple who cop matalica songs???

And do you actually agree with them sueing napster?!?! i mean the implicati of the presedent that would set would extend all over the place! Juston, I-drive, ect... ect... every online-storage company known would be put in jeoperdy!

They got the names by logging on themselves and taking note of who else logged on and D/L Metallica tracks. (I don't use Napster myself, so don't ask me the details.)

As for suing Napster - why not? They knowingly allow this to happen, and they blatantly have this "Wotcha gonna do about it?" attitude. Well, if a SysOp had the blatant policy of letting his BBS be used to pass kiddiPr0n around, he'd be axed and good riddance. Why not napster? Because they are richer?

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Hax0r to Tinman on Thu Jun 08 2000 10:25 pm

Seriously, how can they ever hope to enforce a software license agreement?

lawsuits and punitive dammages, I guess.

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Hax0r to Tinman on Thu Jun 08 2000 10:52 pm

I guess it just proves to show that most musicians are not in it for the mus but rather for the $$$.

What, you mean they should just give away the fruits of their labor, whether they want to or not?

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Amcleod to Tinman on Fri Jun 09 2000 04:25 am

As for suing Napster - why not? They knowingly allow this to happen, and th blatantly have this "Wotcha gonna do about it?" attitude. Well, if a SysOp the blatant policy of letting his BBS be used to pass kiddiPr0n around, he'd axed and good riddance. Why not napster? Because they are richer?

All i am saying is, that if you start making companys/groups/indivuals who provide "services" to users responsible for the way other poeple use those services you will be opening up pandoras box. It could extend as far as parrents sueing a web browser company because their kid was able to access "illegal content" based on the users age. Or make network associates responsible if some terrorist group uses pgp to communicate the plans of a school bombing.

Or, Make Novell responsible for a user who has Microsoft Office 2000 Pro in his Juston shared directory...

It's kinda like targeting the gun companies for gun violence! it is the users who are commiting the crimes, not the company who is proving the software.

·.'·tinman·'.·

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Amcleod to Tinman on Fri Jun 09 2000 04:25 am

Where exactly did matalica get the list of 300,000+ names of poeple who matalica songs???

And do you actually agree with them sueing napster?!?! i mean the implic of the presedent that would set would extend all over the place! Juston, I-drive, ect... ect... every online-storage company known would be put in jeoperdy!

They got the names by logging on themselves and taking note of who else logg on and D/L Metallica tracks. (I don't use Napster myself, so don't ask me t details.)

As for suing Napster - why not? They knowingly allow this to happen, and th blatantly have this "Wotcha gonna do about it?" attitude. Well, if a SysOp the blatant policy of letting his BBS be used to pass kiddiPr0n around, he'd axed and good riddance. Why not napster? Because they are richer?

Because Naptster is simply a means of sharing MP3 files and not all MP3 files are illegal to share (many artists, like Weedpuller, release MP3 files for free for promotional reasons). There is certainly a hell of a lot more piracy going on through FTP and HTTP servers, but you don't see anyone suing the makers of the FTP and HTTP server software.

Rob

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Digital Man to Amcleod on Fri Jun 09 2000 03:13 pm

on through FTP and HTTP servers, but you don't see anyone suing the makers o the FTP and HTTP server software.

True-Dat.

·.'·tinman·'.·

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Tinman to Amcleod on Fri Jun 09 2000 01:42 pm

It's kinda like targeting the gun companies for gun violence! it is the use who are commiting the crimes, not the company who is proving the software.

It is the users who are carrying out illegal copyright violations. True, they should be the ones held liable.

However, if the service-provider is aiding and abeting them in that goal, then they are in fact accomplices in the illegal act. I don't want to blame a SysOp because some users passed illegal material through his system, any more than I want to blame a gun store for a drive-by shooting. I do think that the SysOp of "KiddiPr0n BBS" with file areas specific to different types of kiddi-pr0n should be nailed to the gates of the temple. And the gun-shop owner who deliberately sells arms under-the-counter (or out-the-back-door) to persons who would not otherwise be able to obtain arms legally should be nailed up too.

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Digital Man to Amcleod on Fri Jun 09 2000 03:13 pm

Because Naptster is simply a means of sharing MP3 files and not all MP3 file are illegal to share (many artists, like Weedpuller, release MP3 files for f for promotional reasons). There is certainly a hell of a lot more piracy goi on through FTP and HTTP servers, but you don't see anyone suing the makers o the FTP and HTTP server software.

Rob, you wrote (and are continuing to develop) the SBBS HTTP/FTP servers. Now, if I were to set up an HTTP/FTP server in (say) Boise, Idaho, and packed it with MP3 tracks, (including Weedpuller tracks that your band has _NOT_ released to the public), would the copyright holders of the music in question have a right to sue _you_ the author of the SBBS HTTP/FTP server? In my opinion, the answer is obviously NO. However, wouldn't those artists whose music was being "pirated" (including Weedpuller) be entitled to sue _me_, the person who was breaching your copyright? Obviously YES.

Similarly, if _you_ were to offer an service that was instrumental in the copyright violations, then you too would be liable. Not for being the software author, but for being the service provider.

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Amcleod to Digital Man on Fri Jun 09 2000 04:19 pm

Similarly, if _you_ were to offer an service that was instrumental in the copyright violations, then you too would be liable. Not for being the softw author, but for being the service provider.

For that matter, lets sue microsoft for releasing the "diskcopy" command.

·.'·tinman·'.·

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Amcleod to Digital Man on Fri Jun 09 2000 04:19 pm

Because Naptster is simply a means of sharing MP3 files and not all MP3 f are illegal to share (many artists, like Weedpuller, release MP3 files fo for promotional reasons). There is certainly a hell of a lot more piracy on through FTP and HTTP servers, but you don't see anyone suing the maker the FTP and HTTP server software.

Rob, you wrote (and are continuing to develop) the SBBS HTTP/FTP servers. N if I were to set up an HTTP/FTP server in (say) Boise, Idaho, and packed it with MP3 tracks, (including Weedpuller tracks that your band has _NOT_ relea to the public), would the copyright holders of the music in question have a right to sue _you_ the author of the SBBS HTTP/FTP server? In my opinion, t answer is obviously NO. However, wouldn't those artists whose music was bei "pirated" (including Weedpuller) be entitled to sue _me_, the person who was breaching your copyright? Obviously YES.

Similarly, if _you_ were to offer an service that was instrumental in the copyright violations, then you too would be liable. Not for being the softw author, but for being the service provider.

Napster itself is not really a "service provider" per se as they do not store or transfer the MP3 files themselves (as an FTP or HTTP server would). They write the client software and provide a directory service, but they do not have direct control over what titles are listed in that directory. And more importantly, they do not have specific directory entries for "Pirate MP3s" as you would expect on an obviously infringing pirate FTP or HTTP site. Napster does not facilitate the transfer of illegal MP3s any more than it does for legal MP3s. This, I believe is the distinction.

There are thousands of pirated files transferred over IRC servers every day. Should the operators of those IRC servers be held liable for what the users are doing? I don't think so.

Should AOL be held liable for the pedophiles that prey on AOL chat rooms? I don't thik so. If they created a chat room specifically for "Men over 40 and girls under 12", then someone might have a case against them, but there is nothing analogous to this going on with Napster.

Rob

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Tinman to Hax0r on Thu Jun 08 2000 10:57 pm

Some start out being in it for the music, but once thay get a taste of driv up to a 15 million dollar house in a 300,000 dollar car there intrests start focus on differant things ;-)

I'm not so sure this is the typical case. I'm willing to bet that the majority of the people out there with the 15 million dollar house and the 300k car just want one more thing -- the 100 million gold and saphire diamond toliet seat.

Last time I checked, the more money you have -- the more money you want; look at metallica for example.

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Amcleod to Tinman on Fri Jun 09 2000 04:25 am

As for suing Napster - why not? They knowingly allow this to happen, and th blatantly have this "Wotcha gonna do about it?" attitude. Well, if a SysOp the blatant policy of letting his BBS be used to pass kiddiPr0n around, he'd axed and good riddance. Why not napster? Because they are richer?

There's one simple reason.....

The kiddie porn is stored on the sysops hard drive, something that is physically owned and typically located on the sysops premises.

The metallica files reside on someone elses machine -- someone with no association with napster.

Using your line of thinking one could sue the government for facilitating the internet which allows for irc warez channels which in turn are used to propogate warez sites...etc

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Amcleod to Hax0r on Fri Jun 09 2000 04:28 am

What, you mean they should just give away the fruits of their labor, whether they want to or not?

I'm not saying they should "give away" the fruits of their labor, but you cant tell me that 75$ for a concert ticket as being fair....

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Hax0r to Tinman on Fri Jun 09 2000 10:14 pm

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Tinman to Hax0r on Thu Jun 08 2000 10:57 pm

Some start out being in it for the music, but once thay get a taste of d up to a 15 million dollar house in a 300,000 dollar car there intrests st focus on differant things ;-)

I'm not so sure this is the typical case. I'm willing to bet that the major of the people out there with the 15 million dollar house and the 300k car ju want one more thing -- the 100 million gold and saphire diamond toliet seat.

Last time I checked, the more money you have -- the more money you want; loo at metallica for example.

Yeah,

Like that painting bill gates bought for ***600*** million clams...

·.'·tinman·'.·

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Hax0r to Amcleod on Fri Jun 09 2000 10:20 pm

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Amcleod to Hax0r on Fri Jun 09 2000 04:28 am

What, you mean they should just give away the fruits of their labor, whet they want to or not?

I'm not saying they should "give away" the fruits of their labor, but you ca tell me that 75$ for a concert ticket as being fair....

Friend of mine just spent $108.00 PER TICKET for The Cure's new concert....

·.'·tinman·'.·

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Hax0r to Tinman on Fri Jun 09 2000 10:14 pm

Last time I checked, the more money you have -- the more money you want; loo at metallica for example.

I don't understand why anybody (Metallica for example, but _anyone_ really) should have to apologise for _making_ it in this world. If Metallica is stinking rich, and use $100 bills for toilet paper, so what?

I just learned today that a very close relative of mine has come into a BOAT LOAD of money. I'm not sure exactly how much, but everyone is talking about it in terms of "give or take a few million". All I can say is GOOOOD! It's about time someone in my family made it to the top. This is the same relative that went into town with me to help me collect my stereo. The same person who was frying salt-fish cakes and plantain last time I saw them and who clobbered me with the spatula when I stole a salt-fish cake! They worked hard, and finally, they have MADE it!

If they want a diamond-studded gold toilet, they are entitled to go right out and buy it. Hey, I'll even go around specially to take a dump in it! :) Anyone who says they are less of a person because of their good fortune can go to hell. Quoting the man in the movie: "People who say 'Money is the root of all evil' haven't got any." And to this I add: "People who complain that someone has too much money are jealous that they _don't_ have too much money".

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Hax0r to Amcleod on Fri Jun 09 2000 10:20 pm

What, you mean they should just give away the fruits of their labor, whet they want to or not?

I'm not saying they should "give away" the fruits of their labor, but you ca tell me that 75$ for a concert ticket as being fair....

Fair? What are you talking about, man?

It works like this:

I just made a sandwich. Long french baguette, fresh, split down the middle with a little mayonaise, a dash of Bajan pepper-sauce, lettuce, thinly sliced tomato, and some cold, pan-fried flying fish. Mmm-mm!

What's that? You want it? No problem - $50,000 or get lost.

You say the entire sandwich only cost me a couple bucks to put together and my own labor couldn't add much to the overall cost? True. In that case, $75,000!

What do you mean "I can't charge you that"? It's my sandwich, and it's worth whatever _I_ say it's worth, and if you want it, the price is $100,000 and please keep arguing, because this sandwich is getting more expensive all the time!

Do you see how it works? If Metallica want to charge $750 for a concert ticket, that is their business, and that is the fair price that _they_ have set for their services. And since they are the _only_ source of Metallica concerts, they can set the price how they like and nobody can stop them. Of course, if they did something stupid like that they would not sell many tickets (I don't think) and would be forced to drop the price. Maybe it would drop to $75 where they can fill every seat in the house. Du-uh! That's where they are now!

If $75 wasn't a fair price for a Metallica concert ticket, then they wouldn't get them sold. The fact that they _are_ getting them sold is all the proof you need that $75 is as fair as they want it to be.

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Tinman to Hax0r on Sat Jun 10 2000 02:11 pm

I'm not saying they should "give away" the fruits of their labor, but you tell me that 75$ for a concert ticket as being fair....

Friend of mine just spent $108.00 PER TICKET for The Cure's new concert....

Good for the Cure!

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Amcleod to Tinman on Sat Jun 10 2000 02:48 pm

Good for the Cure!

Scoping angus though my tranqualizer rifle. :-)

·.'·tinman·'.·

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Tinman to Amcleod on Sat Jun 10 2000 03:01 pm

Good for the Cure!

Scoping angus though my tranqualizer rifle. :-)

Why? Because they are doing well for themselves? I know that I'm not sufficiently fond of the Cure to pay that sort of money to see them in concert but obviously there are enough people willing to pay that sort of price, or they would not be charging that price.

So the band is obviously successful, and I can't be angry with them for _that_!

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Amcleod to Tinman on Sat Jun 10 2000 09:16 pm

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Tinman to Amcleod on Sat Jun 10 2000 03:01 pm

Good for the Cure!

Scoping angus though my tranqualizer rifle. :-)

Why? Because they are doing well for themselves? I know that I'm not sufficiently fond of the Cure to pay that sort of money to see them in conce but obviously there are enough people willing to pay that sort of price, or they would not be charging that price.

So the band is obviously successful, and I can't be angry with them for _tha

Yeah, i guess, its just that initial shock when you here how much for a ticket.

·.'·tinman·'.·

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Tinman to Amcleod on Sat Jun 10 2000 10:01 pm

Yeah, i guess, its just that initial shock when you here how much for a tick

Wait until it's 108 bucks for the CD! (Which it will be if muddy-quality MP3 files become the acceptable delivery medium...)

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Amcleod to Tinman on Sun Jun 11 2000 09:34 am

Wait until it's 108 bucks for the CD! (Which it will be if muddy-quality MP files become the acceptable delivery medium...)

Your absolutly right... what we need is a better file format then mp3 ;-)

·.'·tinman·'.·

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Tinman to Amcleod on Sun Jun 11 2000 02:47 pm

Wait until it's 108 bucks for the CD! (Which it will be if muddy-quality files become the acceptable delivery medium...)

Your absolutly right... what we need is a better file format then mp3 ;-)

Like Meridian Lossless Packing (MLP) et al..... which we probably won't see.

The Micro$oft Lemming mentality that brought us VHS instead of Beta-MAX will no doubt stick us with inferior MP3 audio for a while yet!

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Hax0r to Tinman on Thu Jun 08 2000 10:52 pm

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Tinman to Hax0r on Thu Jun 08 2000 10:36 pm

It's funny, pearl jam is taking an interesting angle, thay are releasing new albums which thay are calling "official bootlegs", each album will be differant live proformance (PJ has always encouraged the tapeing of live but thay say the fans always wind up with low quality music, so thay are it easyer for them to get it, and get it good.

Now, I am not a musician -- but I would tend to think that if I was, and if fan either bought bootlegged concert shows or recorded them him/herself that would be flattered. I guess I just can't quite understand why sow many band are opposed to this concept.

I guess it just proves to show that most musicians are not in it for the mus but rather for the $$$.

I agree.. Completely. Even when, and IF all these musicians quit or dissapear because they feel their "art" is being stolen by trading, there will always be other who make the music to share with people, to influence, and associate
with peoples feelings, and dont do it for the money. I'm sure before Metallica was being paid HUGE bucks, they were doing it for the fun of making music, and getting a rush out of others liking it. I really thik that the music industry is one of the most bloated industries. That and sports. I dont think all the money that flies around all of it is right at all.
-Gamma Ray

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Tinman to Amcleod on Sun Jun 11 2000 02:47 pm

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Amcleod to Tinman on Sun Jun 11 2000 09:34 am

Wait until it's 108 bucks for the CD! (Which it will be if muddy-quality files become the acceptable delivery medium...)

Your absolutly right... what we need is a better file format then mp3 ;-)

·.'·tinman·'.·

Its been around for a while. VQF. It sounds MUCHbetter, and the files are smaller. but it never really caught on. look it up, theres even a winamp plugin for it.
-Gamma Ray

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Gamma Ray to Hax0r on Wed Jul 05 2000 03:19 am

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Hax0r to Tinman on Thu Jun 08 2000 10:52 pm

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Tinman to Hax0r on Thu Jun 08 2000 10:36 pm

It's funny, pearl jam is taking an interesting angle, thay are releas new albums which thay are calling "official bootlegs", each album will differant live proformance (PJ has always encouraged the tapeing of li but thay say the fans always wind up with low quality music, so thay a it easyer for them to get it, and get it good.

Now, I am not a musician -- but I would tend to think that if I was, and fan either bought bootlegged concert shows or recorded them him/herself t would be flattered. I guess I just can't quite understand why sow many b are opposed to this concept.

I guess it just proves to show that most musicians are not in it for the but rather for the $$$.

I agree.. Completely. Even when, and IF all these musicians quit or dissap because they feel their "art" is being stolen by trading, there will always other who make the music to share with people, to influence, and associate with peoples feelings, and dont do it for the money. I'm sure before Metall was being paid HUGE bucks, they were doing it for the fun of making music, a getting a rush out of others liking it. I really thik that the music indust is one of the most bloated industries. That and sports. I dont think all t money that flies around all of it is right at all.
-Gamma Ray

Also.. in addition to what I wrote above...

I understand that they would want to make money on their music, but instead of charging for the music, they should be charging for merchandise and ticket sales. theres PLENTY of money just on that. Charging for music is rediculous because its just so easily shared.

-Gamma Ray

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Gamma Ray to Gamma Ray on Wed Jul 05 2000 03:29 am

I understand that they would want to make money on their music, but instead charging for the music, they should be charging for merchandise and ticket sales. theres PLENTY of money just on that. Charging for music is rediculo because its just so easily shared.

Whether or not I agree with you or not, is immaterial. It only matters whether _THEY_ agree with you.

The idea of "Intellectual Property" is one supported by law. If they create music (write it and record it) and they decide that they will sell it for an agreed sum, then they will get sales (or not) as the whim of the public chooses. If nobody buys the music because it is too expensive or the music is lousey, then they are SOL. If nobody buys it because _you_ decide it is morally _wrong_ to sell music (they should live off the merchandizing alone) so _you_ unilaterally distribute copies free.... Well I think you get the picture.

As someone who works in an industry founded on the concept of IP, it is no surprise that I support the concept. If I write software and give it away (I've done this in the past) then that is _my_ choice. But I also make my living by producing software and getting paid for my efforts. I don't think any un-connected third party has a right to decide that I should start earning my living from "support" contracts or "merchandizing" of the business systems that I produce. If someone - even the vast majority of someones - believes that things would be better for me if I _did_ switch to that business model, the fact remains that _I_ disagree, and since _I_ am the owner of the IP in question, _my_ opinion is the only one that counts. The same can be said for those who create music.

I would be very glad if the artists I like best were to give away CD's or make ISO images available for download. In the same way that I'm glad Digital Man decided to make Synchronet free software. But the fact remains that I hold/held a valid 4-node Synchronet registration, which cost me I forget exactly how much but it must have been a couple hundred bucks. And while I am the proud owner of a free copy of Weedpuller's "Congenital" album, I also paid the going rate for a copy of "Girth". When I registered Synchronet, I would have spurned any offer of a cracked copy by any warez-merchant, and in the same way I would have rejected an offer to download "Girth" for free from some third party. Because both instances would have been theft.
</soapbox>

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Gamma Ray to Gamma Ray on Wed Jul 05 2000 03:29 am

I understand that they would want to make money on their music, but instead charging for the music, they should be charging for merchandise and ticket sales. theres PLENTY of money just on that. Charging for music is rediculo because its just so easily shared.

By that logic, software should all be free "because its just so easily shared."

Rob

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Gamma Ray to Gamma Ray on Wed Jul 05 2000 03:29 am

I understand that they would want to make money on their music, but instead charging for the music, they should be charging for merchandise and ticket sales. theres PLENTY of money just on that. Charging for music is rediculo because its just so easily shared.

You obviously don't know much about the industry when you say things like this. How much do you think it costs to Record an album? What do you think pays for the Recording Time? How's a semi-unknown band going to sell anywhere near enough Merchandise to pay for their Recording Bill? Just because you want all your music free does not make it the best thing for the industry or the bands in the industry.

And, as Rob has said.. by your logic then Computer Software, Books, Photos, Videos, etc should all be free as well then eh? All because they're so easily shared... please.

Dave

RE: Should EMulation....

>BY: Tinman to Amcleod on Sun Jun 11 2000 02:47 pm

RE: Should EMulation....

> > BY: Amcleod to Tinman on Sun Jun 11 2000 09:34 am
> >
> > > Wait until it's 108 bucks for the CD! (Which it will be if muddy-quality
> > > files become the acceptable delivery medium...)
> >
> > Your absolutly right... what we need is a better file format then mp3 ;-)
> >
> > ·.'·tinman·'.·

Its been around for a while. VQF. It sounds MUCHbetter, and the files are

>smaller. but it never really caught on. look it up, theres even a winamp
>plugin for it.

Any idea why it missed the big time?

(A) Microsoft - Bill Gates
(B) Bill Clinton
(C) Hillary Clinton
(D) Janet Reno
(E) B, C, & D


.
She asked me why the singers name was 'Alice'.
I said Listen 'Baby' you really wouldn't understand.
- Alice Cooper
---
■ OLXWin 1.00b ■ To realize your dreams: WAKE UP!

RE: Should EMulation....

>BY: Tinman to Amcleod on Sun Jun 11 2000 02:47 pm

RE: Should EMulation....

> > BY: Amcleod to Tinman on Sun Jun 11 2000 09:34 am
> >
> > > Wait until it's 108 bucks for the CD! (Which it will be if muddy-quality
> > > files become the acceptable delivery medium...)
> >
> > Your absolutly right... what we need is a better file format then mp3 ;-)
> >
> > ·.'·tinman·'.·

Its been around for a while. VQF. It sounds MUCHbetter, and the files are

>smaller. but it never really caught on. look it up, theres even a winamp
>plugin for it.

Any idea why it missed the big time?

(A) Microsoft - Bill Gates
(B) Bill Clinton
(C) Hillary Clinton
(D) Janet Reno
(E) B, C, & D


.
She asked me why the singers name was 'Alice'.
I said Listen 'Baby' you really wouldn't understand.
- Alice Cooper
---
■ OLXWin 1.00b ■ To realize your dreams: WAKE UP!

RE: Should EMulation....

>BY: Tinman to Amcleod on Sun Jun 11 2000 02:47 pm

RE: Should EMulation....

> > BY: Amcleod to Tinman on Sun Jun 11 2000 09:34 am
> >
> > > Wait until it's 108 bucks for the CD! (Which it will be if muddy-quality
> > > files become the acceptable delivery medium...)
> >
> > Your absolutly right... what we need is a better file format then mp3 ;-)
> >
> > ·.'·tinman·'.·

Its been around for a while. VQF. It sounds MUCHbetter, and the files are

>smaller. but it never really caught on. look it up, theres even a winamp
>plugin for it.

Any idea why it missed the big time?

(A) Microsoft - Bill Gates
(B) Bill Clinton
(C) Hillary Clinton
(D) Janet Reno
(E) B, C, & D


.
She asked me why the singers name was 'Alice'.
I said Listen 'Baby' you really wouldn't understand.
- Alice Cooper
---
■ OLXWin 1.00b ■ To realize your dreams: WAKE UP!

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Hax0r to Tinman on Wed Jun 07 2000 09:27 pm

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Tinman to Wein_Df on Wed Apr 19 2000 07:01 pm

If you want to be a pirate, thats fine by me, i'll admit it, i just down office 2000 profesional edition... but that is a personal choice, is it r yes, i know that. and i know that if everybodey did it, there would certo no more office 2000. Personaly , i think that it should be illegal, and i really dont know why anybodey would even consider asking if it should or shouldent be.

Well I have to agree with the philosophy, and I agree that you have the righ to choose to break the law and pirate that ware -- but, what exactly is wron with duplicating *ANYTHING* that you legitimately own for personal use?

This is what I have a problem with -- there are certain organizations out th that seem to believe that you do not have a right to duplicate videos, music software, etc for your own personal use. I always thought that "If I own it then why can't i do whatever I want with it, so long as I don't permit other to have it for free?" should be societies approach

makes sense to me.

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Tinman to Hax0r on Wed Jun 07 2000 10:16 pm

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Hax0r to Tinman on Wed Jun 07 2000 09:27 pm

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Tinman to Wein_Df on Wed Apr 19 2000 07:01 pm

If you want to be a pirate, thats fine by me, i'll admit it, i just d office 2000 profesional edition... but that is a personal choice, is i yes, i know that. and i know that if everybodey did it, there would ce no more office 2000. Personaly , i think that it should be illegal, an really dont know why anybodey would even consider asking if it should shouldent be.

Well I have to agree with the philosophy, and I agree that you have the r to choose to break the law and pirate that ware -- but, what exactly is w with duplicating *ANYTHING* that you legitimately own for personal use?

This is what I have a problem with -- there are certain organizations out that seem to believe that you do not have a right to duplicate videos, mu software, etc for your own personal use. I always thought that "If I own then why can't i do whatever I want with it, so long as I don't permit ot to have it for free?" should be societies approach

I was reading something on opendvd.org the other day, and it seems there is problem with the "included licence agreement" pamplet that is included withi the box of most software packages.

Legaly (some law that thay mentioned pertaining to ownership) outlines that the consumer must be presented with any legalities conserning a product BEFO the purchase is made, if the consumer is allowed to purchase an item without agreeing to any conditions befor the monitary transaction takes place, the item's manufacutur cannot enforce any new conditions because the consumer i already the owner of the product.

So, basicly thouse software licences dont hold any watter (ocording to open anyway), The software vendor would need you to sign/agree to the licence in store befor the purchase, or else it's yours to do what you want with.

·.'·tinman·'.·

So I wonder how long it takes someone in congress to get paid off to
change that.

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Digital Man to Tinman on Wed Jun 07 2000 10:36 pm

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Tinman to Hax0r on Wed Jun 07 2000 10:16 pm

So, basicly thouse software licences dont hold any watter (ocording to o anyway), The software vendor would need you to sign/agree to the licence store befor the purchase, or else it's yours to do what you want with.

Except break Copyright laws. There's no "license agreement" when you buy a b either, but that doesn't give you the right to xerox it and give to your friends.

Rob

That is a good point.

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Amcleod to Hax0r on Thu Jun 08 2000 04:54 am

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Hax0r to Tinman on Wed Jun 07 2000 09:27 pm

Well I have to agree with the philosophy, and I agree that you have the r to choose to break the law and pirate that ware -- but, what exactly is w with duplicating *ANYTHING* that you legitimately own for personal use?

Blatant pieces of kiss-up, legislative injustice like the DCMA aside...

So long as you are doing it _for_your_own_use_ I don't think there's anythin wrong with it. If you want to take all your Van Halen CD's and mix up your "Best Of" disk on CD-R that's fine. It's when you start giving them away or selling them that you are essentially crossing the line.

That makes sense and is how I unerstand it. Also you can video tape movies off HBO and watch them later.

That should be no different from running my Digital Radio reciever into my PC and recording my favorite tunes and burning my own CD, I am recording on CD not tape...but esentially it is no different than recording HBO or even Xfiles off FOX for later viewing. I paid for the Digital Radio service like I pay for HBO.

But in truth, the music artists I really like, I do go out and BUY there CDs even if I can get a lot of their MUSIC off radio, not becasue of the quality of the recording but because I want the original CD with ALL their songs and I can look at the CD cover and see the lyrics and photos of the band.

I kind of miss the old vynl album covers, remember Pink Floyd Dark side of the moon with POSTERS in them you could put up on the wall. Ok, I was 14 when I had the Flyod posters on the wall. The music is great on CD but I miss the bigger Album covers. Shoot...I got off on a tangent. :)

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Amcleod to Digital Man on Thu Jun 08 2000 04:59 am

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Digital Man to Tinman on Wed Jun 07 2000 10:36 pm

Except break Copyright laws. There's no "license agreement" when you buy either, but that doesn't give you the right to xerox it and give to your friends.

No, but you do have a right to xerox it and use the copy yourself. I used t do exactly this with the Workshop Manual for my car (back when I used to tun my own engines). The xerox would get torn and stained with grease and dirt when it was illegible I'd make a new copy from the original book.

You also have a right to lend your copy of the book to friends and family, i you choose to. The DMCA now empowers the publisher to deny you the right to lend the boog to another. You can't even _discuss_ the book with a friend a more.

Yup and you can and I do Photo Copy maps that I use in the field, I own the original map, but it would never hold up in field conditions so I keep the original safe and let the copies get rained on torn and messed up. Same thing.

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Tinman to Hax0r on Thu Jun 08 2000 10:57 pm

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Hax0r to Tinman on Thu Jun 08 2000 10:52 pm

I guess it just proves to show that most musicians are not in it for the but rather for the $$$.

Some start out being in it for the music, but once thay get a taste of driv up to a 15 million dollar house in a 300,000 dollar car there intrests start focus on differant things ;-)

Take Rob for example, Sure he likes synchronet now, but what happends after girth sells 20 milion copies??? will he still be running vertruan and updati this fine product? or will he be chasing napster users around the internet?

<evil grin>

I don't know, and can't speak for Rob. But it is not uncommon for people who become famous to continue with thier hobbies. We can only hope Rob enjoys
this enough to continue it, but as we have seen before, he will do what he wants as we all do.
Hope he sells 20 million and I can say I knew him back when. :)
PS: Checked out the video on the web site, looks vvery pro. Would expect to see it on MTV if MTV still playd music.

RE: Should EMulation....

>BY: Tinman to Hax0r on Wed Jun 07 2000 10:16 pm

> > Legaly (some law that thay mentioned pertaining to ownership) outlines that
> > the consumer must be presented with any legalities conserning a product BEFO
> > the purchase is made, if the consumer is allowed to purchase an item without
> > agreeing to any conditions befor the monitary transaction takes place, the
> > item's manufacutur cannot enforce any new conditions because the consumer i
> > already the owner of the product.
> >
> > So, basicly thouse software licences dont hold any watter (ocording to open
> > anyway), The software vendor would need you to sign/agree to the licence in
> > store befor the purchase, or else it's yours to do what you want with.
> >
> > ·.'·tinman·'.·
>So I wonder how long it takes someone in congress to get paid off to
>change that.

It used to be like that with Windows. As it came pre-installed. You
didn't even have the option to return it as it was already out of the
wrapper (so to speak) Perhaps you read about the Windows return day some
Linux users had on the left coast. Wanting to get their money back for
Windows. No one seemed to be the vendor as far as their computer was
concerned. Splashy headlines but not allot accomplished.

As long as you have not ripped a seal, most companies will take it
(the software) back. The EULA used to be inside that sealed agreement
but folks pitched a bitch and no it's more plainly marked READ ME FIRST
sort of thing.

And you never own the software, merely a license to use it. But you knew
that.


.
She asked me why the singers name was 'Alice'.
I said Listen 'Baby' you really wouldn't understand.
Be My lover - Alice Cooper


---
■ OLXWin 1.00b ■ What does it mean, when your life time pen quites?

RE: Should EMulation....

>BY: Tinman to Hax0r on Wed Jun 07 2000 10:16 pm

> > Legaly (some law that thay mentioned pertaining to ownership) outlines that
> > the consumer must be presented with any legalities conserning a product BEFO
> > the purchase is made, if the consumer is allowed to purchase an item without
> > agreeing to any conditions befor the monitary transaction takes place, the
> > item's manufacutur cannot enforce any new conditions because the consumer i
> > already the owner of the product.
> >
> > So, basicly thouse software licences dont hold any watter (ocording to open
> > anyway), The software vendor would need you to sign/agree to the licence in
> > store befor the purchase, or else it's yours to do what you want with.
> >
> > ·.'·tinman·'.·
>So I wonder how long it takes someone in congress to get paid off to
>change that.

It used to be like that with Windows. As it came pre-installed. You
didn't even have the option to return it as it was already out of the
wrapper (so to speak) Perhaps you read about the Windows return day some
Linux users had on the left coast. Wanting to get their money back for
Windows. No one seemed to be the vendor as far as their computer was
concerned. Splashy headlines but not allot accomplished.

As long as you have not ripped a seal, most companies will take it
(the software) back. The EULA used to be inside that sealed agreement
but folks pitched a bitch and no it's more plainly marked READ ME FIRST
sort of thing.

And you never own the software, merely a license to use it. But you knew
that.


.
She asked me why the singers name was 'Alice'.
I said Listen 'Baby' you really wouldn't understand.
Be My lover - Alice Cooper


---
■ OLXWin 1.00b ■ What does it mean, when your life time pen quites?

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Amcleod to Tinman on Fri Jun 09 2000 04:25 am

OTE: DCTEdit v0.04 [4]

RE: Should EMulation.... BY: Tinman to Amcleod on Thu Jun 08
2000 09:35 pm

Where exactly did matalica get the list of 300,000+ names
of poeple who matalica songs??? And do you actually agree
with them sueing napster?!?! i mean the implic of the
presedent that would set would extend all over the place!
Juston, I-drive, ect... ect... every online-storage
company known would be put in jeoperdy!

They got the names by logging on themselves and taking note
of who else logg on and D/L Metallica tracks. (I don't use
Napster myself, so don't ask me t details.) As for suing
Napster - why not? They knowingly allow this to happen, and
th blatantly have this "Wotcha gonna do about it?" attitude.

Napster has a user license agreement that must be agreed to before downloading their software. In it it states that the _user_ is responsible for his or her won actions when d/l'ing or u/l'ing songs. This alone covers Napster legally.

EnFuego

... And God said, "ATDT604-255-5198", and there was connect.

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Enfuego to Amcleod on Mon Nov 06 2000 10:35 pm

Napster has a user license agreement that must be agreed to before downloadi their software. In it it states that the _user_ is responsible for his or h won actions when d/l'ing or u/l'ing songs. This alone covers Napster legall

I doubt it. If you sold a lock-picking kit with the instructions that it should be used only to pick the locks that YOU own, your protection would be quickly challenged in court and you would most likely lose.

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Amcleod to Tinman on Thu Jun 08 2000 08:06 pm

OTE: DCTEdit v0.04 [18]

1338 copies. That was then. Now, the copies are digitally

How True a statement. Back in the 80's I couldn't get my bands demo on a radio or even in a local store. You had to bust your ass just to receive _any_ recognition.

business too. I don't think I'd be too pleased to discover
that millions copies were being given away with the
thinly-veiled connivance of the Napste people! Previously,

A lot of these artists.. Metallica in particular have gone on a napster hunt. I believe the Problem with them is they have had the same level of talent over the years, but no medium to exploit it on. If there was a napster device invented in the 80's, how many other big-haired bands would still be alive and kicking today?

When bands like Metallica, started out, NOBODY wanted to play metal music... if your station did, every church in the city publically chastized your station.. parents wouldn;t allow certian records in _their_ houses...

I remember a lot of people pissin and moaning about Tipper Gores PMRC and it being sso "Unconstitutional" and it "Censored" musicians Illegally... and in a few case rulings ( in florida ) a few "Gangsta rappers" won valid injunctions against the PMRC.

But now that these bands sold their souls and comercialised for their own survival, for the media and airwaves to make them 'acceptable', they are bent.

Sure, the music has changed due to the times and the revolutions of the populaces attitudes, ut if Napster was arround in .. say.. 1984 when metallica released "master of puppets" dont even deny that they wouldn't have had TWICE the success as they have had today.

Heres a principle fact: Musicians dont make much of anything off record sales... their producers do. Their 'label' does. sure.. they make a few bucks.. their _real_ gain in capitol occures when they tour to promote their records and their endorsements.. the clinics they do for the products they endorse..

RIIA, who brought the case against napster.. They get rich off robbing artists. You pop a buck in the juke-box at the local bar to play a few tunes.. half of 1 penny doesnt even make it back to the artists.

Musicians create inspiring ( to some and dreadful to others ) and creative musical scores.... so sony and jet can send it to press and make millions... while the artists have to cart their bottom ends all over the world to make ends meet.

Everyone hears "Recording Artists" in that accronymn and think its the musicians.. but its not. Most bands openly support napster.
If The recording industry wasnt so damn money hungry, they would have artists going after one another for playing each other tunes.. think of all the money Jimmy page would be making from Van Halens playing "Rock-n-Roll" on their one tour... Or whenever a 'cover' band played a local bar.

When napster gets closed down, where will artists gain any recognition? Through media promotions.. paid for by their labels and paid back to the labels with the profits a musician _might have_ made.

The ploy against napster is corporate america cutting its own circulation off and I hope their happy with it.

If they _really_ wanted to hammer down illegal copy oinfringement, they should start a new law in congress. Currently, if _my_ band wanted to record (copy) another bands material, we need contractual permission from the original artist... make it so for the consumer, that would solve the whole napster syndrome in one shot.. instead, the labels would rather litigate to get some cash out of it instead of spending the time promoting those that feed their pockets.. the musicians.


D.Jaye-Guitarist for Prometheus of Buffalo

... "Bea O'Problem? C'mon guys, do I have a Bea O'Problem here?" -- Moe

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: D.Jaye to Amcleod on Mon Jan 01 2001 03:03 pm

BY: Amcleod to Tinman on Thu Jun 08 2000 08:06 pm

H. G. Wells Time Machine: ACTIVATED!

Heres a principle fact: Musicians dont make much of anything off record sales... their producers do. Their 'label' does. sure.. they make a few bucks.. their _real_ gain in capitol occures when they tour to promote their records and their endorsements.. the clinics they do for the products they endorse..

RIIA, who brought the case against napster.. They get rich off robbing artists. You pop a buck in the juke-box at the local bar to play a few tunes half of 1 penny doesnt even make it back to the artists.

Musicians create inspiring ( to some and dreadful to others ) and creative musical scores.... so sony and jet can send it to press and make millions... while the artists have to cart their bottom ends all over the world to make ends meet.

I am _quite_ well aware that the producers and distributors are double-wristed thieves and that when I pay fifteen bucks for a CD the artist is lucky to see a single dollar. I have said repeatedly that if I could buy the CD direct from the artist, so that THEY get the bulk of the $15 I would be overjoyed to do so. And if they want to reduce the price to $7 so I pay half as much as before and they get seven times as much, then wow, I'm all for it. But if not, well hey, I was paying the fifteen bucks anyway, and I'd just as soon see the artists get the lion's share of that money.

The fact that the RIAA and the big five (is it still five?) still make the majority of the money and - perhaps worse - they influence the content AWAY from what thew artist has to say and TOWARD what they wish to publish, is not in question.

I recognise the internet as a great boon for the "non-famous" artist (to coin a phrase) as well as the recognised artists. You can market your own CD's on the net and hopefully make more money than marketing via the big distributors. CDnow offered to manufacture 1,000 CD's including jewel-case, four-color double-fold insert and a single-colour screen on the actual CD for a total of $1,250.00 or a buck and a quarter a CD. If you sell it for seven bucks you are making over five bucks per disk, and I doubt _anybody_ does that well off a Sony or BMG contract! Shipping extra of course!

But also the internet allows the non-famous band to get exposure. And napster is a great way for that to happen, I'm sure. If your music is any good, the public might visit your web-site and buy your CD. Or maybe they are stupid enough to pay to download your MPEG files - but _I_ won't be paying unless I get a CD in my hand! No, the problem isn't that Metallica are idiots or that Napster is intrinsically bad. Exchanging files is a _good_ way for an artist to get public exposure.

The problem is that if Prometheus of Buffalo decides to put six tracks from their latest album on the net for download, they should be able to do so at will, and hopefully, attract enough attention as to get filthy rich and start wearing scarlet velvet cod-pieces in public (or whatever they wanna do) because the music is THEIRS and no big production company should be able to tell them not to. But on the other hand, if Prometheus of Buffalo decide NOT to put the remaining six tracks on the net, for whatever their reason, whether it is a smart idea or a dumb idea, whether they would get more or less famous or rich or layed as a result, doesn't matter. If THEY decide NOT to put certain tracks on the net, then nobody ELSE should come along after the fact, rip the tracks from their CD and stick it on the net against their wishes. All the rubbish talk about "information wants to be free" and "if they are doing it for the money instead of the art, then they can't be very talanted" and "I'm not robbing them, I'm robbing the RIAA who make too much money anyhow" is all just a smokescreen. It just is a cover for "I want to do it, even though it is unethical, and since you can't stop me I'm going to go ahead".

YOUR music (unless you've sold the rights) is YOUR music, and no excuses can justify the distribution of your music AGAINST YOUR WILL by any means. It might be smarter or better for you to distribute it in accordance to my wishes, but if you choose not to heed my suggestion, I have NO RIGHT to go ahead and distribute it anyway.

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Amcleod to D.Jaye on Mon Jan 01 2001 03:54 pm

OTE: DCTEdit v0.04 [28]
Alas, There is intelligent life Scottie :)~

I am _quite_ well aware that the producers and distributors
are double-wrist thieves and that when I pay fifteen bucks
for a CD the artist is lucky to se single dollar. I have

ON a Release we did about 3 years ago... we made a wholloping 34$ off 500 cd's. The Promotor made some 2grand.

I blame this on the bands poor judgement. We _knew_ the jerk we were dealing with, but there was nobody else we could use that had the assets this rat did.

majority of the money and - perhaps worse - they influence
the content AWAY from what thew artist has to say and TOWARD
what they wish to publish, is no in question. I recognise

This is realism. A good example could stem back from the band "Warrent" or "Skid Row". They first appeared as "Glam" or "Hair" bands. After they made a few bucks.. Look at their second releases.. they in _no way_ resembled their first releases. They were able to somehow bank a few bucks and do their second works the way _they_ wanted to do.

Producers ( especially to a young/new artist/band ) run the show. With the acception of Gene Simmons ( Kiss ) most of the producers care not for any of the term "musical integrity ". They just want the artist to "hurry up, meet production deadlines, refund my investment with half your profits".

Captiolism bolds well in the music industry. This is why I fully support napster.

hand! No, the problem isn't that Metallica are idiots or tha
Napster is intrinsically bad. Exchanging files is a _good_
way for an arti to get public exposure. The problem is that

Metallica is not _bad_. They have become what they started out slamming. "Posers". Sure.. Hanoi Jane begged forgivness at one point too.. but in the world of music, when you sell out, its not "Seeking a new direction". its Blasphomy.

They have _every_ right to play what they want, but when _I_ hold them to their own words, they better not piss-n-whine about it.

To be 120% honest, I would _never_ want their sucess. I would rather be a local Icon then a major labels property.

if Prometheus of Buffalo decides to put six tracks from
their latest album on the net for download, they should be

Actually.. its more like 8. Were working on the final 2 right now :)~ and it will be a 100% free download to butrn off and give away.. hell.. even have your band re-record it.. doesnt matter to us. Music is never about money. Its about emotion, raw talent. When you mix the words "music" and "money" you no longer have a musician in the picture.. you have their lawyers, producers, sound eng's...

able to do so at will, and hopefully, attract enough
attention as to get filthy rich and star wearing scarlet
velvet cod-pieces in public (or whatever they wanna do) beca

Ah.. Sweat pants, a tear shirt.. Vans sneakers... :)~

the music is THEIRS and no big production company should be

The music is EVERYONE who enjoys it. Someone may own the paper-written Tablitures or standard notations, But the emotions behind it are somethign _everyone_ shares. Those that don;t even like our material own a part of it as well.

This is where corporate america has lost its soul. This is where the bleeding heart liberals have no clue.

VBoth sides of the napster issue have totally forgotten what its really all about.

Music is Not an mp3 file. Its not notation on paper. Its not my USA jackson soloist cranked through my Boogies or Laney's.... Its sound and emotion mixed together with feelings from those who listen.

able to tell the not to. But on the other hand, if
Prometheus of Buffalo d remaining six tracks on the net, for
whatever their reas smart idea or a dumb idea, whether they
would get more or le or layed as a result, doesn't matter.

Us gettin laid? Not hardly :(

If THEY decide NOT to tracks on the net, then nobody ELSE
should come al tracks from their CD and stick it on the net
against their w rubbish talk about "information wants to be
free" and "if t the money instead of the art, then they
can't be very tala robbing them, I'm robbing the RIAA who
make too much mone a smokescreen. It just is a cover for "I
want to do it, eve unethical, and since you can't stop me
I'm going to go ahea YOUR music (unless you've sold the
rights) is YOUR music, and no excuses can justify the
distribution of your music AGAINST YOUR WILL by any means.

Heres the greatest fall of it all.

Maby this is a moot point because we _freely_ will distribute _anything_ we record.

If another _musician_ ( read:not lable) wishes to record anything _we_ put together.. hey.. I'd feel honored. It would mean that these individuals have something in common with myself.

Its a common thought that there will _always_ be one musician learning/playing/recording anothers work. Just as scientists figured out and passed along, all the recorded information they did.. so do musicians. Basic passing of evolutions no?

Music _could be_ defined as recorded thoughts. If we start litigating our thoughts.. whats left of real freedom?

D.Jaye

... All right... Who's been cooking hot dogs in the warp nacelles?

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: D.Jaye to Amcleod on Fri Jan 05 2001 02:05 am

Maby this is a moot point because we _freely_ will distribute _anything_ we record.

The point is, YOU made the decision to do so. Nobody should have had the right to make this decision for you. If you had decided NOT to make any of it available for download, that too should have been YOUR decision. _Maybe_ it would have been a bad decision, but it would have been yours, and nobody should have the authority to overrule your decision and make your music freely available against your wishes. Any more than they should be able to _ban_ your downloads.

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: D.Jaye to Amcleod on Mon Jan 01 2001 03:03 pm

OTE: DCTEdit v0.04 [9]

even make it back to the artists. Musicians create inspiring
( to some and dreadful to others ) and creative musical
scores.... so sony and jet can send it to press and make
millions... while the artists have to cart their bottom ends
all over the world to make ends meet. Everyone hears

I'm not defending the record compananies, nor am I slamming Napster, but, it's like this. NO one is forcing bands to sign these record contracts. Granted, their chances of "making it" are slim to none without doing so, but they are making a councious choice to sign a record contract. Sure, musicisans get the short end of the stick, but a the record companies are thoe ones putting up most of the money ((which has to be paid back of course), they have a right to dictate terms. As for Napster -- if a band is looking for exposure, it's a great waydo it. But, if a nband doesn't want to be made available on Napster, they shouldn't have to be, whatever their reasoning behind. For the really realy big stars (ie Britney Spears), even though record sales are relatively_ a small amount, they are still worth millions of dollards to them. ANyway, my point is simply that it should be up to the individual nand whether they want to be on Napster or not.

... An optimist is a guy without much experience...

RE: Should EMulation....
BY: Evan Thacker to D.Jaye on Tue Jan 09 2001 01:06 am

I'm not defending the record compananies, nor am I slamming Napster, but, it like this. NO one is forcing bands to sign these record contracts. Granted their chances of "making it" are slim to none without doing so, but they are making a councious choice to sign a record contract.

Unfortunately, the fact that there "slim to none" chance of making it WITHOUT the record companies, forces many into their hands unwillingly.

But, if a nband doesn't want to be made available on Napste
they shouldn't have to be, whatever their reasoning behind.

I agree, but many don't.

For the really
realy big stars (ie Britney Spears)....

Ugh!

ANyway,
point is simply that it should be up to the individual nand whether they wan to be on Napster or not.

Alas, a very large number of people feel differently. They have the power to place a band unwillingly on Napster, It is virtually impossible to stop them, and they have a very large number of people who support them, even if the law does not. The entire _company_ (Napster) was predicated on the idea that there are millions of people willing and able to copy music expressly against the wishes of the artists themselves.

Hopefully, with the internet as a medium for people to listen to music (as opposed to the record company controlled radio stations) and as a medium for the publicizing, sale and maybe even delivery of music, new business models will evolve. The record companies are crapping their pants about it and the entire Napster/RIAA/DeCSS mess is about them trying not to lose their strangle-hold on the industry.

The record company pays up front for the production of the album (studio, pressing, etc) plus the marketing (buying DJ's, music journalists, making video, and wotnot) and so they want to get their money back. Nobody can blame them. But they want their money back up-front, at a 10:1 rate, and then they want 95% of any residuals, and the artist has to sign over rights to the music FOR EVER (not just for 10 years or even 100 years). And artists have had to go along with this because there was no alternative.

Well now, there IS an alternative, and it is being refined and streamlined and improved every day. If nothing else, this should give artists the ammunition to fight for better terms, when negotiating with the record companies.

Re: Should EMulation....
By: Tinman to Amcleod on Thu Jun 08 2000 06:35 am

realises that what thay are doing is really illegal. "in the old days" SysOp and warez groups had to be compulsivly carefull for fear of a rade on there houses. These days i guess poeple just don't care <shrug>

I think a lot of the Napster and KaZaa mind set is out there is populasr witht the kids, but the booty can be irresistable.

With the current state of affairs in this country, I don't think software piracy is at the top of the list of government priorities.

I think the Feds have more pressing concerns than wasting agents time kicking in the bedroom door of a 12 year old kid to bust him for having a boot leg copy of Linkin Park in his Kazaa Share Folder.

Still, it does not make it right. I personally make it a point to PURCHASE the CD of all my favorite musical artists. One I like supporting my favorite bands. Two, I like having a legit copy of the CD, kind of like a collector. Three, I like reading the inserts and seeing the pictures that come in the CDs.

I also have been making it a point to purchase sftware I like to use.I actually have legit copies of stuff like Win 98 & ME, Norton Anti Virus, Paint Shop Pro, Video Wave, Music match juke box.........
I would also like to say that I have purchased software that was crapolla and felt it was criminal for someone to charge money for non functional software with misleading lables. So I am not going to get down on someone for downloading and trying the software out before they buy. Of course cracked software is a risk in itself. You never really know what youa re going to get.

I think many of the WAREZ sites are so laiden with risks to your PCs stability and health that someone who consistantly gets their software from thatroute will in the end suffer a living PC pergatory in dealing with trying to fix the damage they have inflicted on themselves. How many nights of reinstalling your OS to fix the damage from screwed up miss matched dll files that some hack patched together or try and fix a myrid of other problems.

Finally they decide to bite the bullet a buy a legit copy of what they really need to make their PC do the stuff they want it to do.

Pirates really do suffer....
Downloader BEWARE!

No, thre is no need for making PC's hardware incapable of making copies, in fact it is wrong.

A legitamite owner of programs and music should have and does have fair use rights to make back ups of their CDs. And a good thing to becasue I do have legally purchased software that the original CD has become un usable.

Well...thats all for now. :)
Spiff Out!

Re: Should EMulation....
By: Spaceman Spiff to All on Thu Jun 27 2002 04:52 pm

Though I agree with you, I would like to add:

It is my opinion that the justification for piracy that used to exist has ended. It used to be that in order for young people to learn how to program, draw, create anything worthwhile on their computer, they had to have expensive tools to do it. Things like Borland C++, Turbo Pascal, etc etc were priced for people who were developers insterad of being priced for people wanting to learn. There wasn't a very good alternative for people. That is until Linux/GNU (RMS would kill me) came along. Especially recently, its become more and more easy for a person to get all of the tools they need to learn about computer and do whatever they want. Without pirating a thing. So, I think that's one reason why piracy has gotten so soulless lately. Before, it was theivery for the sake of curiosity (and admittedly, fun. Not all the releases were utilities hehe), but now its just stealing for the sake or stealing, for many.

I still don't think that piracy hurts people on the scale that it exists (go to Korea and see what scale hurts) but I think that its lost much of its character that used to exist. THen again, maybe I am just rambling.

/s

o


> Re: Should EMulation....

By: Tinman to Amcleod on Thu Jun 08 2000 06:35 am

realises that what thay are doing is really illegal. "in the old days" Sy and warez groups had to be compulsivly carefull for fear of a rade on the houses. These days i guess poeple just don't care <shrug>

I think a lot of the Napster and KaZaa mind set is out there is populasr wit the kids, but the booty can be irresistable.

With the current state of affairs in this country, I don't think software piracy is at the top of the list of government priorities.

I think the Feds have more pressing concerns than wasting agents time kickin in the bedroom door of a 12 year old kid to bust him for having a boot leg c of Linkin Park in his Kazaa Share Folder.

Still, it does not make it right. I personally make it a point to PURCHASE t CD of all my favorite musical artists. One I like supporting my favorite ban Two, I like having a legit copy of the CD, kind of like a collector. Three, like reading the inserts and seeing the pictures that come in the CDs.

I also have been making it a point to purchase sftware I like to use.I actua have legit copies of stuff like Win 98 & ME, Norton Anti Virus, Paint Shop P Video Wave, Music match juke box.........
I would also like to say that I have purchased software that was crapolla an felt it was criminal for someone to charge money for non functional software with misleading lables. So I am not going to get down on someone for downloading and trying the software out before they buy. Of course cracked software is a risk in itself. You never really know what youa re going to ge

I think many of the WAREZ sites are so laiden with risks to your PCs stabili and health that someone who consistantly gets their software from thatroute will in the end suffer a living PC pergatory in dealing with trying to fix t damage they have inflicted on themselves. How many nights of reinstalling yo OS to fix the damage from screwed up miss matched dll files that some hack patched together or try and fix a myrid of other problems.

Finally they decide to bite the bullet a buy a legit copy of what they reall need to make their PC do the stuff they want it to do.

Pirates really do suffer....
Downloader BEWARE!

No, thre is no need for making PC's hardware incapable of making copies, in fact it is wrong.

A legitamite owner of programs and music should have and does have fair use rights to make back ups of their CDs. And a good thing to becasue I do have legally purchased software that the original CD has become un usable.

Well...thats all for now. :)
Spiff Out!

Re: Should EMulation....
By: Tinman to Hax0r on Thu Jun 08 2000 02:36 pm

It's funny, pearl jam is taking an interesting angle, thay are releasing 27 new albums which thay are calling "official bootlegs", each album will be of differant live proformance (PJ has always encouraged the tapeing of live sho but thay say the fans always wind up with low quality music, so thay are mak it easyer for them to get it, and get it good.

The Grateful Dead used to allow taping of shows, the actually had a Tapers section where people could hook in to the mixing board. Very cool, and there is a lot of Grateful dead music out there because of that. I have a couple tapes of Dead Shows. I wish we had digital recorders back then, hmmmm of course a good high quality reel to reel tape is nice, but who could bring a portable reel to reel to a concert, no all we had was cassete decks, still, I have some good stuff. So the concept of allowing fans to tape has been around and does a lot ot boost a bands popularity with fans.

Re: Should EMulation....
By: Spaceman Spiff to All on Thu Jun 27 2002 04:52 pm

Re: Should EMulation....
By: Tinman to Amcleod on Thu Jun 08 2000 06:35 am

realises that what thay are doing is really illegal. "in the old days" Sy and warez groups had to be compulsivly carefull for fear of a rade on the houses. These days i guess poeple just don't care <shrug>

I think a lot of the Napster and KaZaa mind set is out there is populasr wit the kids, but the booty can be irresistable.

With the current state of affairs in this country, I don't think software piracy is at the top of the list of government priorities.

I think the Feds have more pressing concerns than wasting agents time kickin in the bedroom door of a 12 year old kid to bust him for having a boot leg c of Linkin Park in his Kazaa Share Folder.

Still, it does not make it right. I personally make it a point to PURCHASE t CD of all my favorite musical artists. One I like supporting my favorite ban Two, I like having a legit copy of the CD, kind of like a collector. Three, like reading the inserts and seeing the pictures that come in the CDs.

I also have been making it a point to purchase sftware I like to use.I actua have legit copies of stuff like Win 98 & ME, Norton Anti Virus, Paint Shop P Video Wave, Music match juke box.........
I would also like to say that I have purchased software that was crapolla an felt it was criminal for someone to charge money for non functional software with misleading lables. So I am not going to get down on someone for downloading and trying the software out before they buy. Of course cracked software is a risk in itself. You never really know what youa re going to ge

I think many of the WAREZ sites are so laiden with risks to your PCs stabili and health that someone who consistantly gets their software from thatroute will in the end suffer a living PC pergatory in dealing with trying to fix t damage they have inflicted on themselves. How many nights of reinstalling yo OS to fix the damage from screwed up miss matched dll files that some hack patched together or try and fix a myrid of other problems.

Finally they decide to bite the bullet a buy a legit copy of what they reall need to make their PC do the stuff they want it to do.

Pirates really do suffer....
Downloader BEWARE!

No, thre is no need for making PC's hardware incapable of making copies, in fact it is wrong.

A legitamite owner of programs and music should have and does have fair use rights to make back ups of their CDs. And a good thing to becasue I do have legally purchased software that the original CD has become un usable.

Well...thats all for now. :)
Spiff Out!

Your name sounds very familiar to me... Did you ever use Maryland BBS systems?

Re: Should EMulation....
By: Spaceman Spiff to All on Thu Jun 27 2002 04:52 pm

Re: Should EMulation....
By: Tinman to Amcleod on Thu Jun 08 2000 06:35 am

realises that what thay are doing is really illegal. "in the old days" Sy and warez groups had to be compulsivly carefull for fear of a rade on the houses. These days i guess poeple just don't care <shrug>

I think a lot of the Napster and KaZaa mind set is out there is populasr wit the kids, but the booty can be irresistable.

With the current state of affairs in this country, I don't think software piracy is at the top of the list of government priorities.

I think the Feds have more pressing concerns than wasting agents time kickin in the bedroom door of a 12 year old kid to bust him for having a boot leg c of Linkin Park in his Kazaa Share Folder.

Still, it does not make it right. I personally make it a point to PURCHASE t CD of all my favorite musical artists. One I like supporting my favorite ban Two, I like having a legit copy of the CD, kind of like a collector. Three, like reading the inserts and seeing the pictures that come in the CDs.

I also have been making it a point to purchase sftware I like to use.I actua have legit copies of stuff like Win 98 & ME, Norton Anti Virus, Paint Shop P Video Wave, Music match juke box.........
I would also like to say that I have purchased software that was crapolla an felt it was criminal for someone to charge money for non functional software with misleading lables. So I am not going to get down on someone for downloading and trying the software out before they buy. Of course cracked software is a risk in itself. You never really know what youa re going to ge

I think many of the WAREZ sites are so laiden with risks to your PCs stabili and health that someone who consistantly gets their software from thatroute will in the end suffer a living PC pergatory in dealing with trying to fix t damage they have inflicted on themselves. How many nights of reinstalling yo OS to fix the damage from screwed up miss matched dll files that some hack patched together or try and fix a myrid of other problems.

Finally they decide to bite the bullet a buy a legit copy of what they reall need to make their PC do the stuff they want it to do.

Pirates really do suffer....
Downloader BEWARE!

No, thre is no need for making PC's hardware incapable of making copies, in fact it is wrong.

A legitamite owner of programs and music should have and does have fair use rights to make back ups of their CDs. And a good thing to becasue I do have legally purchased software that the original CD has become un usable.

Well...thats all for now. :)
Spiff Out!

Actually I have been into warez for about 6 years, and not once have I had any serious damage that required compleate reformating, or that totally disabled my PC in any way. All that crap is just stuff told by software companys to scare people into not pirating.

Re: Should EMulation....
By: Computrius to Spaceman Spiff on Wed Jul 17 2002 04:48 pm


I can send you a couple if you really want to have the experience. I guess it really only needs a few .dll files replaced with something not compatible with your system to give you endless blue screens.

Try getting a version of Video Wave 5 that is floating around.

As far as i know it is totally legal to own an emulator.
To own the roms however, you must own their actual hard counterparts.
"Wein_Df" <wein_df@vert.synchro.net> wrote in message news:38FDCB54.1.debate@vert.synchro.net...

OTE: DCTEdit v0.04 [1]
Should it be illegal to have roms and emulations of older systoms or even
of
the n64 and psx if u own one personally I don't think it should its a lot
cheaper to get it off the web (free)

... AD&D Famous Last Words: "Glad it's over with. I'm taking off my armour."

Re: Should EMulation....
By: Wein_Df to All on Wed Apr 19 2000 08:05 am

Emulation allows pople to play their favorite retro games (mostly for platforms that are hard-to-find/mostly junk or games which aren't available/in the region of player. For example, that old GB game that wasn't released where you live, but yoou WANT? Bam! It's on your ROM site of choice.