OK

On Oct 23, 11:28 am, "Jim Beaver" <jumble....RemoveThis@prodigy.spam> wrote:
> "Calvin" <cri....RemoveThis@windstream.net> wrote in message
> > Well, the one I've seen was made in Japan and called a 'video
> > stabilizer',
> > and the box illustration showed two side-by-side pictures, one a
> > photo with slightly wavy lines, and the other with straight lines. In
> > the
> > extra directions included, not the 'official' ones, it was told how
> > to open it up and cut a particular wire, to defeat copy-protection.
>
> This anecdote is fine, but meaningless in this discussion, because it's not
> evidence that all such devices are made/marketed elsewhere than the U.S. or
> that all such devices come with instructions on how (presumably illegally,
> though not so noted in your anecdote) to defeat copy-protection. The
> devices I spoke of are made/marketed in the U.S. and are made for the
> purpose of working around copy protection. They certainly don't involve
> "opening up and cutting wires."

I know you said "over and out", so I don't expect you to respond
to this, but if your next-to-last sentence above is true, why don't
you tell us where the items are sold, and how much they cost?
(He asked rhetorically.)

I looked at eBay to see if the item I told about is still available,
but it appears not, using any of the keywords I tried. Two bad,
because it was low priced and works beautifully (I'm told).
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

On Oct 23, 12:22 pm, "DanG" <nos....DeleteThis@q.com> wrote:
> Jim's right. "video stabelizers" are widely available in the USA, and legal.

No doubt. That was the cover (and cover-up) description
of the Japanese item that I told about. Video stabilizers
are perfectly legitimate. But the one I'm talking about was
obviously designed to be converted to a copy-protection
remover. There is a little rectangular rubber plug that you
pry up to reveal the wire that is to be cut. Clever, because
the opening ability can be plausibly explained as meant
for repair access.
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

On Oct 23, 11:31 am, No Man <woes... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> Calvin wrote:
> > I hope you were just kidding about copying my e-mail.
> > It should have been clear from the context that we were
> > talking about copying video and audio media, not e-mail
> > or anything else.
>
> I have high expectations, sometimes frustrated, most often not, that
> everyone in this group has the IQ at least equal to a potted plant. Of
> course, that understanding is forged in areas generally bereft of the
> barren ground known as "conservative."
>
> What on earth, or on Jupiter, would be the use, private, public, or for
> profit, of any "e-mail" of a Calvin?

Well, nasty man, if you had said you 'quoted' my statement,
which you did, I would have gone along with the joke
without comment. But you said you 'copied' my statement,
which was concerned with getting around copy-protection,
and therefore something that no one, including a Calvin, would
want to have 'made available to all'. Quoting the line you quoted,
or quoting everything I said, would not have elicited any
concern from me, but *copying* such sensitive discussions and
*making them available to whomever*, if believed, would be
a matter of concern to anyone.

I'm sure you're more intelligent than I am, but I may
not be as dumb as you think. I admit to being paranoid,
though.
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

Jim's right. "video stabelizers" are widely available in the USA, and legal.
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

On Oct 23, 12:22 pm, "DanG" <nos... DeleteThis @q.com> wrote:
> Jim's right. "video stabelizers" are widely available in the USA, and legal.

I stand corrected. I thought 'video stabilizer' and
'copy-protection remover' were two different things,
and that the Japanese device combined the two
functions surreptitiously, so as to market the
latter function under cover.

But a Google search on 'video stabilizer' instantly
shows that the two functions are advertized together,
apparently interchangably, and devices very similar
to the Japanese one are included.
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

On Oct 23, 3:39 pm, schu....DeleteThis@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
> In article <1193157999.475693.21....DeleteThis@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Calvin <cri....DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> : I'm sure you're more intelligent than I am, but I may
> : not be as dumb as you think.
>
> You do realize that if he agrees that you may not be as dumb as he thinks
> you are, he probably doesn't mean it as a compliment, I hope.

What a surprise. Mr. Schultz takes me out of phantom killfile
retirement just to pile on. This is only more of the high-school
mentality that pervades this NG. Tell someone something
that isn't true, and if he believes you, call him stupid.
When did you guys first learn that trick, 3rd grade?
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

"Calvin" <crice5.DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:1193155833.892716.247120@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 23, 11:28 am, "Jim Beaver" <jumble....DeleteThis@prodigy.spam> wrote:
>> "Calvin" <cri....DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote in message
>> > Well, the one I've seen was made in Japan and called a 'video
>> > stabilizer',
>> > and the box illustration showed two side-by-side pictures, one a
>> > photo with slightly wavy lines, and the other with straight lines. In
>> > the
>> > extra directions included, not the 'official' ones, it was told how
>> > to open it up and cut a particular wire, to defeat copy-protection.
>>
>> This anecdote is fine, but meaningless in this discussion, because it's
>> not
>> evidence that all such devices are made/marketed elsewhere than the U.S.
>> or
>> that all such devices come with instructions on how (presumably
>> illegally,
>> though not so noted in your anecdote) to defeat copy-protection. The
>> devices I spoke of are made/marketed in the U.S. and are made for the
>> purpose of working around copy protection. They certainly don't involve
>> "opening up and cutting wires."
>
> I know you said "over and out", so I don't expect you to respond
> to this, but if your next-to-last sentence above is true, why don't
> you tell us where the items are sold, and how much they cost?
> (He asked rhetorically.)

Give me a day or so. I'll see what I can get from my contacts in vid
production. Specifics aren't on the tip of my tongue.

Jim Beaver
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

On Oct 23, 4:30 pm, "Jim Beaver" <jumble... DeleteThis @prodigy.spam> wrote:
> "Calvin" <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> > I know you said "over and out", so I don't expect you to respond
> > to this, but if your next-to-last sentence above is true, why don't
> > you tell us where the items are sold, and how much they cost?
> > (He asked rhetorically.)
>
> Give me a day or so. I'll see what I can get from my contacts in vid
> production. Specifics aren't on the tip of my tongue.

Thanks, but no need. Anyone can Google 'video stabilizer' and
see plenty of hits, as I finally realized after the exchange with you.
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

Calvin wrote:

> I'm sure you're more intelligent than I am, but I may
> not be as dumb as you think. I admit to being paranoid,
> though.

You know when you walk into McDonald's and you line up and notice the
guy ahead of you is wearing a Mac uniform? That means everybody behind
him don't get served. The line is closing.

That's my position here. You gotta be smarter'n me to play.

Sorry.


--
'... my name is Noman; this is what my father and mother and my friends
have always called me.' - Odyssey; Book IX
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

No Man wrote:
> Calvin wrote:
>
>> I'm sure you're more intelligent than I am, but I may
>> not be as dumb as you think. I admit to being paranoid,
>> though.
>
> You know when you walk into McDonald's and you line up and notice the
> guy ahead of you is wearing a Mac uniform? That means everybody behind
> him don't get served. The line is closing.
>
> That's my position here. You gotta be smarter'n me to play.
>
> Sorry.
>
>

Too bad you're not smart enough not to eat at MacDonald's.

--
Frank in Seattle
____

Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"Millennium hand and shrimp."
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

In article <1193157999.475693.21720.RemoveThis@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Calvin <crice5.RemoveThis@windstream.net> wrote:

: I'm sure you're more intelligent than I am, but I may
: not be as dumb as you think.

You do realize that if he agrees that you may not be as dumb as he thinks
you are, he probably doesn't mean it as a compliment, I hope.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr.RemoveThis@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

On Oct 23, 7:42 pm, No Man <woes....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That's my position here. You gotta be smarter'n me to play.

Now there's a statement that I know is false. I'm not
biting this time.
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

On Oct 21, 9:20 pm, LiquidSteal <stricklan....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I agree and I disagree! I think the way we do things now, is not much
> different than what we used to do back in the day of recording from
> the radio, or making copies of cassette tapes ect... What has changed
> is the technology and how we are able to capitalize on it and use this
> technology to our benefits. I disagree that downloading music should
> be illegal for our own personal use at home or our ipod's ect.. What
> is the difference then going to the internet and listening to whatever
> music you want to at any given time? The only difference I see here
> is that someone else has the music for you to listen to instead of you
> actually having it stored on your personal machine, or hard drive.
> The only reason that I disagree with this, is because of our
> technology and how easy it is for us to make copies of someone else
> work and sell it in our stores, and or give them away, which in my
> opinion is no different than selling them because every copy you give
> away, is a potential sell that artist will not get. So keep the music
> you download personal, and let the people that created the music make
> there profits.

downloading music is illegal but it cannot be stopped, so what's the
point of making it illegal?

this is the way i see it....

some people say downloading music is actually good for the record
industry. people get to sample stuff and if they really like it,
they go and buy the cd.
but this is like saying people in a food mart should be allowed to
sample stuff even without paying for it. gee, if they like it, maybe
they'll buy it!! this is stupid.

BUT, the reason why downloading music is different is that it comes
into our homes.
suppose there was a technology in every house where if you pressed a
button, the food in some mart popped up inside your house. suppose
you are only supposed to pay for this. but, suppose it's almost
impossible to catch or stop people from doing this. that being the
case, who would NOT download food this way?

same with recording mooies from tv and cable on vcrs. i mean how
could you stop this? this is why such was made legal as long as one
didn't sell the stuff.
 >> Stay informed about: OK