Posted by FatKat on 09/18/05 17:15

iluvzlayur wrote:
> > > Why the name-calling?
> >
> > Call you a cheap bastard - that was your suggestion.
>
> I said IF you call me a cheap bastard, then so is everybody that uses
> WinMx, you cheap bastard.

You win, iluvzlayur, you're actually much pricier than anybody on this
NG.
>
> > > If you aren't a cheap asshole, why would you download any song from
> > > WinMx when you already know that other people have been successfully
> > > prosecuted for exactly that?
> >
> > I DL obscure music that's hard to find. Oh that's right, you can't get
> > that obscure music because Open Nap hates you.
>
> you didn't answer the question. "Obscure" doesn't mean "without
> copyright".

It does? When did we come to that conclusion? This may be
cross-Atlantic language barrier thing - one of those subtleties of
English that are unique to either British or American ears (like a
billion instead of "thousand million") but I always thought that
"copywright" was a legal term of art, with a specific meaning
(necessarily requiring similar specificity as to any terms it attached
to like "copywright material" or "media lacking copywright") while
"obscure" was a more generic term sometimes including, sometimes
excluding copywritten media, but generally meaning media that is
relatively unknown and difficult to find and acquire.
>
> > > You are a cheap asshole too.
>
> > I must be - that $15 exacto knife is pretty expensive,
>
> If I was Bill Gates, I wouldn't spend the kind of money some stores
> want me to spend for stuff.

I thought you were in it for the challenge. Am I wrong? That is what
you wrote.

> I'm that guy with $100,000 in his checking
> account, and would rather spend half the day looking for a better deal
> on paper towels because the places I've been to so far are about $1 too
> high. Actually, that DOES sound like Bill Gates.

Actually, if Bill Gates is ever found to have engaged in that sort of
behavior, you'll probably be more memorable than he is, unless we ALSO
learn that Bill Gates also goes around town buying CD's to rip from,
and going to abnormal lengths to make them look un-opened so he can
return them for a refund. There's a difference between being a
penny-pincher and being a person who wastes time and energy to save a
precious few dollars. If anything, the petroleum industry isn't losing
out because of you.
>
> >not to mention
> > the mileage you burn up going to enough stores to amass 5,000 songs.
> > All I spend are ISP fees.
>
> I spend nothing, I walk to all 5 because they are all on the same city
> block.

5 stores on the same block? I didn't think 5 stores could coexist in
the same city to say the least the same neighborhood. Besides, I
though you had to go to different stores or...oh, forgot, you're a
master of disguise who can fool the same cashier repeatedly, or sucker
the punch the smarter ones.

> The good thing about taking advantage of the "customer is always right"
> mentality of such stores is that at least I get exercise.

Yeah, mentality is pretty much at the heart of your hobby. Because I
file-share, I have to jog to get my exercise - luckily I already have
the music for it.
>
> > > I takes me about 1 hour to rip two new cd's and return them to the
> > > store. That's about 35 songs. Plus I have a different mindset than
> > > you; I like to do it because I like the challenge of defeating the
> > > system and getting away with it.
> >
> > I think the trouble you go through is the victory of the system. All
> > that for a bunch of songs?
>
> Sorry, I don't regard a single hour's worth of effort as "all that".
> Hell, I have a beer or two while they are ripping to the computer, so
> now I'm allowed to drink on the job.

I'll remember this post when some WinMX newbies start accusing us of
having too much time on our hands. Why stop at 2 beers? Go for 3 or
4. Hell, a six-pack!!

> > RIAA must be happy to know that these are
> > the ends that some pirates would go.
>
> Being fatcats, I'm sure they do view walking a quarter mile to the
> store and related efforts as strenuous cumbersome effort.

Ofcourse, they're fatcats - just lazy guys who couldn't possibly keep
up with the likes of you. They've got millions of dollars because they
hire other people to exact knife/crazy glue their music for them. Now,
if you stay true to form, you'll go from characterizing your "enemy" to
some fanciful account of your sexual/physical prowess.

> But I can still see my cock when I look down without holding my stomach in.

The system works!!
>
> > Between the two of us, they're
> > probably happier with you and you're "Mission: Impossible" style.
>
> doesn't matter to me. One good day at the stores equals about a week's
> worth of download-waiting time.

I can DL about 5 gb a week. Just how much do you...uh...acquire?

> I'd otherwise have to let my computer
> tie up the phone line all night to keep up with the cd ripping scheme.

You're dial-up? All this time you've been complaining about DL when
you're on an antiquated internet connection? Do you realize that for
about $10 more a month, you can get a basic broadband connection and
leave your connection running round-the-clock - and you won't have to
sucker punch or fool anybody, or make any trips to the store. You'll
have more time to actually use that cock of yours and less time to
think with it. You really are cheap.

> I like music, but not enough to get a second phone line.

I'll remember that next time somebody gets arrested for pulling your
brand of piracy.
>
> >The
> > rest of us accepted the challenge of learning how to use software like
> > WinMX which comes with no instruction manual or help-page.
>
> I know how to use OpenNap. I discovered what the problem was: Since I
> have dial-up, anybody who downloads a song from me just kills my
> download speed all to shit.

If you really knew how to use open nap, you'd at least have phrased
that more coherently. What are your throttle settings by the way? As
for sending your DL speeds to shit - that's simply the price you pay
for not paying for anything or having to walk for it, or use
"mentality".

> I could have left my share folder empty,
> but all that means is that those who browse me after i start
> downloading from them, and discover I have nothing (or those who use
> LeechHammer) will thus cancel me and put me on ignore.

Those sharing bastards!!! We hate them!!!!!!!!!!!!

> My solution was to therefore share 500 mp3s, but give them names that
> nobody would want to download. That way I bypass the Leechhammer, but then
> nobody is interested in anything I have and thus all my bandwidth can
> concentrate on my downloads. I ripped 500 songs into my share folder, then
> used a bulk file-renaming utility to name all of them with names that nobody
> would wish to download, such as "homeless windex bangee".

So, now you're a leech - in spirit if not in name. I'm not sure that
the above would really work. I know when DL avi files on WPN,
different file names don't really matter - the client software
recognizes my copies of last week's "The Longest Day" even though I've
changed the file name at least once since DL'g it.
>
> But I still switch to the dogshit share folder when I want to search
> WinMx to get download started quicker. I'm an "all-take-and-no-give"
> sorta bastard, and it's people like me that give p2p file sharing a bad
> name, which I am very proud of.

Yes, we sort of got that message with your OP.
>
> > > It's neither purposeless nor needless....you get free songs which are
> > > indisputably of good quality.
> >
> > Actually, I already get songs of good quality - I either buy them or
> > get them from WinMX.
>
> Fate must love you more than me, I guess.

It may have something to do with that "all-take-and-no-give" that
you're so proud of.

> > > But some people who love music, would think my procedure IS worth the
> > > effort. Do ALL New Yorkers immediately assume that they way they think
> > > is the way everybody else thinks?
> >
> > Actually no - they don't even expect common-sense to be all that
> > universal, which is why you're method of piracy isn't all that
> > surprising. What is surprising is that nobdy's sold you a CD that has
> > already been through your procedure with another buyer.
>
> Yes, that would be suprising, because I already told my friends, and
> they've benefited that way before I got around to doing it, so perhaps
> some new cd that I ripped and returned, has already blessed that last 5
> or 6 cheap assholes before me.
>
I'm glad we've gotten past the name calling.

> > Unsurprising as it is, your procedure makes no sense. It's time
> > consuming and labor intensive to say the least,
>
> Your doctor can prescribe a special exercise utility for your hands and
> arms to get you off the couch and a new lease on life. Trust me, my
> rip-and-return scheme is anything BUT "labor intensive". Hell I
> watched a porno, drank a beer, babysat, and yacked with my neighbor all
> while getting songs off a cd. It's a labor of love, not a labor of
> intensity.

....and getting off, and beer and baby-sitting. Masturbation,
alcoholism and child endangerment. You DO live on the edge.
>
> > by an order of magnitude in comparison to winmx, for the same profit.
> > That conclusion requires no assumption, merely reasoning.
>
> Ah, but you fail in your reasoning to take into account the problems I
> stated I have with songs from WinMx, which you snapped back that you
> didn't have.

That's the scientific method for you - observation, deduction and that
other stuff.

> You might get great quality songs, but I don't.

Yeah, now we know why. You've spent so much time rationalizing your
unique brand of selfishness that you've never really gotten that good
at it.

> I'm an audiophile, one skip in the song is one too many. We are two very
> different people.

I don't have skips in my files, which means that I'm mysteriously
getting your music. Hmmmmm

> I don't think that getting it free means I need to
> live with less than first-rate product.

Neither do I, and luckily, that's about as rare an occurrence as
getting a bad DVD or CD. And thanks to your post, I now know why a
"new" disc won't play.

> Don't forget, I'm on dial-up,

That's the last thing I'll forget about this. You're an audiophile who
wants to get the most music for the least cost, and you're on dial-up.

> and I need my phone line open most of the time.

With a basic DSL connection, you can have that line free for your
phone. It's an alternative that allows you to feed your desire for
music and overcome the protection schemes without having to miss a rent
payment or force younger members of your family to hold down multiple
paychecks.

> So I really have no
> other way to feed my desire to overcome protection schemes and satisfy
> my craving for songs, except to make homemade exacto knives while my
> daughter pays the rent working two jobs :)

Whoops!! Well, as long as you're on speaking terms with her, and don't
aggravate things by picking a fight over petty and meaningless matters,
you should be safe.

> Were not talking anymore
> because she didn't come home last night with pizza and beer for me
> after she got off work at 2:30 am. But that's another story.
>
> > > but there's no bullshit or fakery about ripping cd's. Unless you don't
> > > really want the songs, and you just keep deleting them after you rip
> > > them.
> >
> > It was the ends you unneccessarily went to get that music that makes
> > you the Dan Brown of piracy - always the more complicated answer for
> > the same result.
>
> How old are you? You think my scheme is "complicated" !?

Let's just say, mid-30's. I may be a bit conclusory here, but compared
to setting up an internet connection and winmx connection, which you
really only have to do one time, and having to make repeated trips to
the store, then extract CD's involving a process that most people apply
to surgery, bomb disposal or putting ships in bottles - that conclusion
was pretty inescapable. Also on the age thing, just how old are you
considering that you act like a teenage shoplifter?

> I LOVE doing this shit!

Well, you are what you love.

> Do you LOVE your job? Does it allow you to stay home and
> sleep all day and drink beer and yack with the neighbors and watch Mtv?

How funny of you to ask iluvzlayur, There actually was a time, years
ago, when just having gotten married, and gotten out of school, I had
no job and spent much of time at home. While that seemed okay on some
days, there was something often dispiriting about an existence that
boiled down to beer and MTV, and seldom escaping the home. There were
days when I had this extra incentive to get out of the house, if only
because there must have been this nightmare image at the back of my
head that in 20 years I was going to have a son or daughter who'd have
to work two jobs to pull down the bills while whiled away the day with
beer, mtv and shoplifting.
>
> > > > We dishonest freeloading
> > > > bastards share our stuff, rather than stick somebody else for paying
> > > > for our left-overs.
> > >
> > > Methinks the RIAA is getting stuck by everybody who obtains their
> > > copyrighted music without paying for it. There is simply no denying
> > > that they lose money due to such file-sharing.
> >
> > an old argument, not likely to be resolved in this thread, and entirely
> > irrelevant to your argument.
>
> THAT comment you just made is irrelevant. You started that "old
> argument" (see above) and I was merely offering my differing opinion.

I did? Sounds like you're trying to slip in more irrelevant crap.
There's no exacto knife on the internet, fortunately.

> I never offered "the RIAA is losing money" to SUPPORT any previous
> argument.

Hard to argue an incomprehensible point.
>
> And your comment was wrong anyway, except perhaps saying it was an old
> argument. Unless you can say with all sincerety that even after you
> burn a cd full of songs downloaded thru WinMx, that you'd NEVERTHELESS,
> still go buy those exact same songs at the store, then WinMx has become
> the reason you spend less money on CDs.

Where did I even hint that position? This thread was about a single
point - the irony of the lenghths you'll go to maintain your
selfishness. This has nothing to do with the virtues of piracy or the
moral superiority of file-sharing over shoplifting, though you've made
it difficult to avoid the latter with your talk of beer, sex and MTV.
>
> One of the RIAA's stronger points is when they ask what reason somebody
> who downloads copyrighted songs would have to go buy those same exact
> songs from the store. WinMx users can't answer that.

Hard to answer a poorly phrased question, but not impossible. When we
get those songs from the store, we typically are unable to get just
that song, instead having to get other songs that come with the album.
I can think of only two albums I've purchased that I listened to most
of the music. While pay-DL services are a better choice, restrictions
on transferability of the media (even if it's not being shared with
anybody else) makes that a similarly unlikely prospect. Lastly, your
insistence that store-bought music is inherently higher quality is not
even right. I've gotten bad or inferior discs in the past.

> if they say they won't buy the same songs, that's loss of profit for them.

How do people who steal music lose or profit or...oh, I see, you were
referring to two *different* people in the third person. Well, that's
different - it's plainly irrelevant. There are people who won't buy
songs, whether they've DL'd them or not. By your logic, the refusal to
purchase music is in any event a loss, regardless of file sharing.
Those who do DL a single off an album and then don't buy the album were
probably not going to anyway. Or they may decide to buy the album or
other discs by that band/artist if they liked what they DL'd enough.
Or they may decide not to buy anything figuring that one song is
enough. It's that last possibility that obvioulsy bothers the industry
and one that they believe accounts for virtually all file-sharers, even
though it represents one of several possibilities. Obviously they
can't claim lost what was never there's - there's no such crime as
lost-profit, and since you're convinced that file-sharing offers less
quality than store-bought CD's (or store-acquired in your case), the
industry isn't facing a challenge all that different from one posed by
people who simply recorded their favorite stuff off the radio.

> If you say you'd still buy those same exact songs, well then, even your own
> WinMx buddies will think you are one crazy son-of-a-bitch.

No, they'll just say that I bought songs, and probably come up with
different reasons for it - avoiding fakes, keeping out of RIAA's hair,
the crime of crazysonofabitchery, unavailable on winmx, really like the
artist/band, etc.
>
> > > I have. I worked a returns and exchanges counter for about 2 weeks. I
> > > fired after I refunded money to my friend who returned 26 cd's she
> > > bought earlier that day. None of them had the plastic wrapping on
> > > them, and none of them had the cd's in them either. My manager yelled
> > > "goddam!" when he found out. I am currently suing them for religious
> > > discrimination.
> >
> > There's a religion based on subourning theft?
>
> Yes, it's called Christianity. Don't you go to church?

Not a Christian, but surprised to hear that it ennobles theft.
>
> > > You aren't quite the music connosueir I am.
> >
> > Actually, if you're less discriminating than I am, you're no connoseur
> > at all.
>
> I'm glad to shed that title before I even put it on, thank you. I'm
> more like a hog than a connoseur. I'm all take and no give and I step
> on everything and everybody in order to satisfy my cravings. If I
> thought I could get one more extra Mp3 in a day by slashing your tires,
> I'd do it.

Thanks for clearing that up.
>
> > > > The only stuff I couldn't get is likely so obscure
> > > > that few music stores would be likely to have it either.
> > >
> > > I have lots of obscure stuff that i haven't seen anywhere else. For
> > > example, an hour's worth of recording outtakes by Garth Brooks, singing
> > > "the dance".
> >
> > Garth Brooks? I take back the above - you are a connousuer, but of
> > what, we'll leave for others....
>
> Yes, "Garth Brooks". The all-time best selling solo act in US history.
> The guy who had 4 consecutive albums get to #1 on both of Billboard's
> Country AND POP charts. You don't need to leave the answer to others,
> I can answer for myself; I am a "connousuer" of music steeped in the
> biggest success of a solo-act in Us History. Thanks for the
> compliment. The point is not that going with the popular opinion is
> good....the point is rather that any insults toward the music of Garth
> Brooks, expressed or implied, ride on the assumption that the awards
> and success he has achieved mean nothing, which is stupid.

Actually, we were talking about obscure music. You said that you had
lots of obscure stuff that you hadn't seen anywhere else. Then you
dropped Garth Brooks's name.
>
> I'll bet you'd like to have his money!

Do you really think so, iluvzlayur, did that really trip your wires?
That I specifically would want Brooks's money, but nobody else would?
While we're on the subject, I wouldn't mind having your money, or your
daughter's or your neighbor's. That's the good thing about money -
sums aside, the cash itself is pretty interchangeable. There are
probbaly many people who would take his money without a second thought
as long as they didn't have to listen to his music. While we're on the
subject, I hear he's ready to offer a few mp3's to the first guy
willing to slash all four of his own (or his daughter's tires).
>
> > > 5 stores in my city, each with at least 4 different people that work
> > > the returns counter. And you can return to the same person if you wait
> > > and return to other clerks and stores first. One clerk accepts returns
> > > from me every single day, and she neither knows me nor remembers me.
> >
> > Have you ever considered robbing the place - seeing how you've cased it
> > so well?
>
> Yes, but I have morals and I PAY for what I want, I don't steal.

....and then get a refund after you've taken and kept what you wanted.
What you're doing is still theft.
>
> >>Garth Brooks would be proud as punch to know that his fans
> > will employ a hit man's precision to acquire his music. "There has got
> > to be a way" he thinks "to make some money off this guy."
>
> My attorneys are ready to negotiate a deal with him the day he calls.

The iluvzlayur legal team stands ready day-and-night.
>
> > > We have sex every other night. The more music she allows me to return,
> > > the more I put out in bed. When she once allowed me to return 13 new
> > > dvds, she got written up for it at work. But she said that night was
> > > the best sex she ever got from me. I buy her alcohol, she helps with
> > > my scheme. It's a world gone mad.
> >
> > Actually, it's par for the course on this NG. Normally, whenever
> > somebody adopts an unpopular viewpoint and can't substantiate it over
> > getting slammed by others, the talk typically turns to sexual
> > supremacy. Typical, though not very plausible.
>
> First, I didn't say I was good in bed. I said SHE said I was good in
> bed. Big difference. Because the next fuck might have a different
> attitude toward me when she sees all those open sores on my groin.

Have you tried eating more? I hear those record execs get to sleep
their way through every hot young act, and because they're so fat,
nobody can get a good look at their Johnson (or size up their lack
thereof).
>
> I don't remember getting slammed by anybody in this newsgroup.
> However, I seem to recall the faint echos of tack-hammers trying to
> hurt a mountain.

There you have it folks, the NG's 1st bonafide
mountain-out-of-a-molehill.
>
> > > Good point, however, it also has to do with me using up time to
> > > download a song from WinMx, then playing it and discovering that it is
> > > either some other song entirely, or sounds very gritty, in definance of
> > > the stats WinMx showed for them.
> >
> > What stats are you talking about? I get high-quality sound from WinMX
> > (the same can't be said for the video, though that's likely because
> > most of it is from old TV shows badly ripped from VHS. You're likely
> > to encounter bad quality down the line anyway if you transcode or if
> > you burn to CD which we know doesn't last forever.
>
> I only download songs that WinMx says were ripped at 320 bit-rate. Yet
> even most of those often have scratches and squeaks, and I just got
> tired of all the waiting.

See above re: DSL (no waiting!)
As for high bit-rates, surely an audiophile such as yourself knows that
a rip is only as good as the original master. If you don't stick
withhighest bit-rate, you're likely to end up with perfectly acceptable
copies. And nobody will hit you up for slashing their tires.

> To wake up happy in the morning because I now had 15 new songs, only to
> discover that 8 of them were damaged like so.

That's still 56 songs a week, or 2800 songs over the course of a year.
>
> > > But again, I love the feeling of knowing I have defeated a protection
> > > scheme and gotten away with it.
> >
> > The system was never designed to utterly stop theft, merely make it as
> > impractical as possible, and force those determined to end run it to be
> > as impractical as possible. Sounds to me like they succeeded. And
> > what utterly convincing and concrete response can you provide which is
> > guaranteed to wow us with its inherent believability?
>
> I work for the CIA, and my rip and return scheme is just a
> sophisticated way of doing a psychological profile on female
> counter-clerks.

And I'm an analyst for the NSA who shares files and participates on
this NG as part of SIGINT.

[Back to original message]