original quads vs. blanks- Evans-Gibson-Winnard go ape****

An Archies quad blank listed on ebay brings $127

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=403195958 3


While an original Pink Floyd Wish You Were Here quad brings only $62,
from the same seller

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=403195958 3


The message is clear- trackers are sick and tired of chasing the same
rare, overpriced, boring, obscure tapes on ebay. They just want new
music in the format already. They don't want the tapes that Evans
jealously hoards, the ones he tried to sell for $500 each through word
of mouth...

Which is why the "purist anal collector types" like Winnard, Gibson,
Evans, are now going ape****....

Obvious reason, their so-called "valuable" tape collections have been
greatly devalued...

Too bad guys, suck it up...

"trippin28track" wrote in message
om...
The message is clear- trackers are sick and tired of chasing the same
rare, overpriced, boring, obscure tapes on ebay. They just want new
music in the format already.

So what you are saying is, it's okay to screw people with fake tapes.
We already know you are a criminal, you don't have to remind us.

winnard

Making your own 8-track tapes does not infringe copyright. You can
sell any recording on 8-track tape. It doesn't infringe copyright
because there are exemptions in the copyright law which allow for the
sale of re-recordings of "obsolete" formats. An obsolete format is
considered one in which the playback equipment is no longer
commercially produced or sold (ie; still in production). There aren't
any 8-track decks being presently manufactured.

So you're full of hot air Winnard- mind your own business...

What I'm saying, is you're an arrogant ass for all the world to see,
interfering with other peoples' lives and auctions, based on what YOU
think a tape should look like.

Since when did you become owner of ebay and the internet ?

You guys did not accomplish anything, except remove the last
commercial avenue for getting the So Wrong 8-track movie. So now it's
out of print, with none available at all.

Great accomplishment, Winnard...wanna star for that ?? I'll pin a
little tattle tail on you....what an honor it must be...

You guys actually have so little life that you troll ebay and the net,
looking for tapes that you believe aren't real ?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

(trippin28track) wrote in message . com...
Making your own 8-track tapes does not infringe copyright. You can
sell any recording on 8-track tape. It doesn't infringe copyright
because there are exemptions in the copyright law which allow for the
sale of re-recordings of "obsolete" formats. An obsolete format is
considered one in which the playback equipment is no longer
commercially produced or sold (ie; still in production).


That is wrong. But the impromptu explanation is at least a little more
clever than that fake "Spectres" you had up for sale.

What is correct, however, is that Federal copyright law provides for
$25,000 guaranteed statutory damages for each act of infringement. The
infringed party can pick or choose whether to sue for actual damages
(which must be proven) or statutory damages (in which no loss must be
proven, only the infringement itself).

I hope to God that Mr. Forster pursues a Federal copyright suit
against your sorry ass. The phony "obsolete format" argument wouldn't
help much in regard to the unauthorized VHS dubs.

(trippin28track) wrote in message . com...
Making your own 8-track tapes does not infringe copyright. You can
sell any recording on 8-track tape. It doesn't infringe copyright
because there are exemptions in the copyright law which allow for the
sale of re-recordings of "obsolete" formats. An obsolete format is
considered one in which the playback equipment is no longer
commercially produced or sold (ie; still in production). There aren't
any 8-track decks being presently manufactured.

So you're full of hot air Winnard- mind your own business...

What I'm saying, is you're an arrogant ass for all the world to see,
interfering with other peoples' lives and auctions, based on what YOU
think a tape should look like.

Since when did you become owner of ebay and the internet ?

You guys did not accomplish anything, except remove the last
commercial avenue for getting the So Wrong 8-track movie. So now it's
out of print, with none available at all.

Great accomplishment, Winnard...wanna star for that ?? I'll pin a
little tattle tail on you....what an honor it must be...

You guys actually have so little life that you troll ebay and the net,
looking for tapes that you believe aren't real ?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What are you laughing at? You seem to be making a lot of noise about
getting in trouble on ebay. And how much time do you have to sit
around and post non-stop like this? You waiting for John Kerry to find
you a job or sumthin? LOSER!!!

GG

You can't get damages beyond the loss of profit- and must prove loss
of profit...

Not much profit lost from a friggin OBSOLETE 8-TRACK SALE, you moron.
8-tracks are no longer sold new in the stores- it's a dead format.

No lawyer with an ounce of brains, would tell a client to sue, costing
said client thousands in legal fee retainers and work at $150 an hour
lawyer time- to sue over tapes costing $5-10 each with a $50 high
price per tape.

No wonder you dropped out of law school, you're a friggin' idiot.

In other words, no one is gonna sue if you make a copy of Madonna on a
acetate 78rpm record cutting machine...

or 8-track...

DREAM ON PAUL-

ps- nice work nixing my wife's ebay username- and getting all upset
over her practice bidding and feedback on a few $10 items with no
other bids...you're a real man, you are....a regular Perry ****ing
Mason...

original quads vs. blanks- Evans-Gibson-Winnard go ape****

Group: alt.collecting.8-track-tapes Date: Mon, Sep 6, 2004, 2:40pm
(EDT-3) From: (trippin28track)
-
ps- nice work nixing my wife's ebay username- and getting all upset over
her practice bidding and feedback on a few $10 items with no other
bids...you're a real man, you are....a regular Perry ****ing Mason...
////////

why does this come off as a lie as well?
How likely is it his 'wife' would have a user name like
'coolsitesnsounds'?
Now for once, tell the truth. you really are chuckle8 too, right?

lennon fan wrote:


original quads vs. blanks- Evans-Gibson-Winnard go ape****

Group: alt.collecting.8-track-tapes Date: Mon, Sep 6, 2004, 2:40pm
(EDT-3) From: (trippin28track)
-
ps- nice work nixing my wife's ebay username- and getting all upset over
her practice bidding and feedback on a few $10 items with no other
bids...you're a real man, you are....a regular Perry ****ing Mason...
////////

why does this come off as a lie as well?
How likely is it his 'wife' would have a user name like
'coolsitesnsounds'?
Now for once, tell the truth. you really are chuckle8 too, right?

"Practice Account"? Too funny. Under pressure, Charlie's lies get lamer
and lamer.
--

Daniel and Kathy Gibson
http://www.katestrackshack.com
"Kate's Track Shack -Your Internet Home For Inexpensive 8-tracks!!"
AND...
http://drnooseandjambone.com
"DrNoose And Jambone - Do It To The Optigan!"

(trippin28track) wrote in message . com...
You can't get damages beyond the loss of profit- and must prove loss
of profit...

Not much profit lost from a friggin OBSOLETE 8-TRACK SALE, you moron.
8-tracks are no longer sold new in the stores- it's a dead format.

No lawyer with an ounce of brains, would tell a client to sue, costing
said client thousands in legal fee retainers and work at $150 an hour
lawyer time- to sue over tapes costing $5-10 each with a $50 high
price per tape.

No wonder you dropped out of law school, you're a friggin' idiot.

In other words, no one is gonna sue if you make a copy of Madonna on a
acetate 78rpm record cutting machine...

or 8-track...

DREAM ON PAUL-

ps- nice work nixing my wife's ebay username- and getting all upset
over her practice bidding and feedback on a few $10 items with no
other bids...you're a real man, you are....a regular Perry ****ing
Mason...



Here, go ahead and bone up a little on copyright law, infringement,
and damages.

I did get a lousy C in copyright, so my recall on details was faulty,
but the gist was right on. Anywhere from $750 to $30,000 per
infringement, statutory damages, and up to $150,000 if the Court finds
"willful infringement." Like, if there's a standard
FBI-don't-make-a-copy-of-this blurb, and you dubbed it anyway.

------------------------------------

20.25 COPYRIGHT DAMAGES—STATUTORY DAMAGES—WILLFUL
INFRINGEMENT—INNOCENT INFRINGEMENT (17 U.S.C. § 504(C))


If you determine that the defendant infringed the plaintiff's
copyrighted work[s] in Instruction [[20.4 (Copyright
Infringement—Elements—Ownership and Copying)] [insert number of
infringement instruction]], you must consider the damages the
defendant must pay to the plaintiff. The plaintiff seeks a statutory
damage award, established by Congress for [the work infringed] [each
work infringed, regardless of the number of infringements of each
work]. Its purpose is to penalize the infringer and deter future
violations of the copyright laws.


[You may award as statutory damages for the infringement of the
plaintiff's copyrighted work an amount that you feel is just under the
circumstances, provided that amount is not less than $750, nor more
than $30,000. In this case, the plaintiff contends that the defendant
infringed the plaintiff's copyrighted work and that an award of $___
for that infringement would be just.]


[You may award as statutory damages an amount that you feel is
just under the circumstances, provided that amount is not less than
$750, nor more than $30,000 per work you conclude was infringed. In
this case, the plaintiff contends that the defendant infringed [insert
number] of the plaintiff's works and contends that [specify particular
works and statutory damages amount requested for infringement of the
particular work or works]] would be just.]


Comment


The jury should be provided with a special interrogatory form in
order to report its findings on the issue of statutory damages.


The Seventh Amendment provides for the right to a jury trial on
statutory damage issues, including the amount of such award. Feltner
v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340, 355 (1998).


Under the Digital Theft and Deterrence and Copyright Damages
Improvement Act of 1999, P.L. No. 106–60 (106th Cong. 1st. Sess), the
minimum for statutory damages was raised from $500 to $750 per work
infringed and the maximum was raised from $20,000 to $30,000 per work
infringed. The statutory damage maximum for willful infringement
increased from $100,000 to $150,000.


There is wide discretion in determining the amount of statutory
damages, constrained only by the specified statutory maximum and
minimum. See Los Angeles News Serv. v. Reuters Television Intern., 149
F.3d 987, 996 (9th Cir.1998); Harris v. Emus Records Corp., 734 F.2d
1329, 1335 (9th Cir.1984) (The trier of fact must be guided by "what
is just in the particular case, considering the nature of the
copyright, the circumstances of the infringement and the like"
restrained only by the qualification it be within the prescribed
maximum or minimum.). See also Peer Int'l Corp. v. Pausa Records,
Inc., 909 F.2d 1332, 1336 (9th Cir.1990).


Because statutory damages serve both compensatory and punitive
purposes, plaintiff can recover statutory damages whether or not there
is adequate evidence of the actual damage suffered by plaintiff or the
profits reaped by the defendant. Harris, 734 F.2d at 1335. See also
Peer Int'l Corp., 909 F.2d at 1337. "Even for uninjurious and
unprofitable invasions of copyright the court may, if it deems it
just, impose a liability within statutory limits to sanction and
vindicate the statutory policy" of discouraging infringement. F.W.
Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc., 344 U.S. 228, 233 (1952).
When an injury can be shown, but neither profits nor damages can be
proven, statutory profits are mandatory. See Russell v. Price, 612
F.2d 1123 (9th Cir.1979); Pye v. Mitchell, 574 F.2d 476, 481 (9th
Cir.1978).


Modification to Instruction for Innocent Infringement Cases


When the defendant raises evidence regarding innocent
infringement of the copyright, add the following two paragraphs to
this instruction:


The defendant contends that the defendant innocently infringed
the [specify] copyright[s]. If the defendant proves this by a
preponderance of the evidence, you may, but are not required to,
reduce the statutory damages for infringement of that work to a sum as
low as $200.


An infringement is considered innocent when:


1. the defendant was not aware that the defendant's acts constituted
infringement of the copyright; and


2. the defendant had no reason to believe that the defendant's acts
constituted an infringement of the copyright.


Whether defendant's infringement was innocent is a factual
determination. See Los Angeles News Serv. v. Reuters Television Int'l,
149 F.3d 987, 995 (9th Cir.1998).


Even if the trier of fact finds that an infringement was
innocent, this finding does not mandate a reduction in the statutory
damages. See Los Angeles News Serv. v. Tullo, 973 F.2d 791, 800 (9th
Cir.1992).


Modification of Instruction when Willful Infringement Alleged


When the plaintiff provides evidence regarding willfulness of
the defendant's infringement of the copyright, add the following two
paragraphs to this instruction:


The plaintiff contends that the defendant willfully infringed
the [specify ] copyright[s]. If the plaintiff proves by a
preponderance of the evidence willful infringement, you may, but are
not required to, increase the statutory damages for infringement of
that work to a sum as high as $150,000.


An infringement was willful when the defendant engaged in acts
that infringed the copyright, and knew that those actions may infringe
the copyright.


Although neither the Copyright Act nor its legislative history
defines "willful," the Ninth Circuit defined willful as the
defendant's "knowledge that the defendants' conduct constituted an act
of infringement." See Peer Int'l. Corp. v. Pausa Records, Inc., 909
F.2d 1332, 1335–36 n. 3 (9th Cir.1990). To refute evidence of willful
infringement, the defendant must "not only establish its good faith
belief in the innocence of its conduct, it must also show that it was
reasonable in holding such a belief." Id. at 1336 (a defendant who
ignored the revocation of its license to a copyrighted work and
continued to use the work after the revocation, willfully infringed
that work). See also Columbia Pictures Television v. Krypton
Broadcasting of Birmingham, Inc., 106 F.3d 284, 293 (9th Cir.1997)
("Willful" means acting "with knowledge that [one's] conduct
constitutes copyright infringement."), rev'd on other grounds, Feltner
v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340 (1998).

In the quad 8track issue, that does not cover the exemption for being
a musical format, that is obsolete.

A home recorded 8-track tape does not infringe copyright. It doesn't
infringe copyright because there are exemptions in the copyright law
which allow for the sale of re-recordings of "obsolete" formats. An
obsolete format is considered one in which the playback equipment is
no longer commercially produced or sold (ie; still in production). As
there aren't any Q8 or 8T stereo decks being presently
manufactured.........your argument holds no water. "Tapers" are
protected.

Secondly, the copyright owner must show "damages"..........or their
loss of income due to the infringing behavior. As a quad mix IS NOT
in commerical production.........there is NO damage to the copyright
owner. And, as the law also specifies that the copyright owner is
only allowed to recoup the "profits" from the infringing behavior to
the level of their LOSS of profit. They can't collect
anything........nothing from nothing, is nothing.

On the movie issue, Russ informed me he intends to offer the movie in
DVD and VHS himself, so that's where you gotta get it. I can respect
that. But for a long time, that movie was out of print-and Russ
wasn't answering emails- and the movie was unavailable and appeared
out of print. Then a dub or 2nd hand copy is the only alternative.

So then again looms the issue, you can't have loss of profits on a
movie, that is not even available on a steady basis. No judge or jury
will award anything. You have to prove loss of profits.