Greetings!

Okay. I have been doing a bit of cleaning up, and I feel that I no longer need to have one of my old units in storage. Especially since it is different from the others I have - it is not as good for a test box as my other spare and home machine. So, I am now offering my "Lab Rat" machine up for sale:

Empeg Mark 2 (original Empeg Mark 2, not a RioCar 2A, 12MB RAM)

- serial number 0900000587

This was my original empeg, purchased when I was still on the waiting list. It has seen use, so there are visible marks from having being inserted / removed from the docking sleeve. It also shows normal wear around the handle and body.

- 96GB capacity

Yes, that is 96GB. This machine has two IBM 48GB Travelstars in it. Obviously, they did not come that way from empeg, Ltd. or SonicBlue, so the machine has been opened, the hard drives replaced and the warranty voided. Well, given that the machine was manufactured in 2000, the warranty had already expired anyway.

- power, serial, USB cables, stickers (I think I still have the stickers)
- sled (never installed)
- extra sled (never installed)

I had an extra sled that I was going to make into a docking station. This will go with the unit.

- tuner module (never installed)
- smoke lens (DarkStorm's creation)
- with knob fix installed (see the board for more details)

I am asking $1,000 for this, which includes UPS shipping to anywhere in the US. This is still far less than I paid for it initially, and is approximately the "at cost" value of the components (original price for the tuner / sleds, $200 for a base emepg, pricewatch cost for the drives, etc.). I wanted to give the board / community a chance first, before listing it on ebay.

If anyone is interested, please send me a private message on the board.

Note: the existing music will be wiped from the hard drives before the sale. The buyer probably would not like my musical tastes anyway...

> Note: the existing music will be wiped from the hard drives before the sale

Darn, I might have bought it just for that.

> The buyer probably would not like my musical tastes anyway...

With 96 Gigs, I would imagine anyone would find something to their taste. I feel I have a pretty eclectic music taste, but I can not fathom that many gigs worth of music that I would actually want to hear.

Greetings!

> With 96 Gigs, I would imagine anyone would find something to their taste. I feel I have a pretty eclectic music taste, but I can not fathom that many gigs worth of music that I would actually want to hear.

True, I have playlists for various day-to-day use, but I have my entire collection available for listening at will, in case I get in the mood for something specific. Thus my migration from 96GB to 120GB - I needed more space. Also, with hijack installed, it doubles as a music jukebox for the folks in my office.

That's a great collection!

You ought to give the buyer the option of keeping the music or not. If I had an extra $1000 lying around I would grab it up. My 40GB is getting full and there is so much more I want to put on it.

You gotta love someone with both Mel Torme and Frank Zappa in the same collection.

You gotta love someone with both Mel Torme and Frank Zappa in the same collection.

Tony loves me! Tony loves me!

Yes, but in a strictly platonic sense.

Greetings!

phi144> That's a great collection!

Thanks! That has been the work of about a decade and a half... It evolves as my tastes in music evolves.

Laura> You ought to give the buyer the option of keeping the music or not.

I was tempted, but the files are out of date. I doubt I could fit everything on there at this point. Also, there is the big copyright thing...

Laura> My 40GB is getting full and there is so much more I want to put on it.

I know that feeling. You can never have too much hard drive space...

Tony> You gotta love someone with both Mel Torme and Frank Zappa in the same collection.

Actually, that is part of the new additions. I was in the mood for something different, experimental, exotic. So I picked up the Mel stuff on a whim... This is still a "work in progress". I have a bunch of new stuff that I am just starting to encode now. More strange combinations: off hand I can remember "The Beach Boys", "Iron Maiden", "Frank Sinatra",...

Greetings!

The empeg has been sold. Thanks!!!

"Also, there is the big copyright thing... "

It's not like anyone is gonna go file a lawsuit against you.

It's not like anyone is gonna go file a lawsuit against you.

Yz... you just don't get it, do you?

Are you so morally bankrupt that you think the only reason people are honest is fear of punishment? I don't know about you (well, actually, I'm afraid that I do... ) but most people are honest because they have to live not only with the consequences of their actions, but with their own sense of honor and well being.

I would bet that the overwhelming majority of participants on this bbs would take the same stand that Paul did in this matter.

tanstaafl.

(edited to make the name referenced above correct...)

I would

Who's Jim?

Who's Jim?

For some reason I had Jim Hogan on my mind when I made that post -- I really meant you, Paul. My apologies. I am going to go edit that and fix it right now.

tanstaafl.

Not a problem... Just kidding!!! : )

Well, it is done. All cleaned up, disks rebuilt, packed and ready to ship. Wow, that was much harder than I thought...

Well I don't think I need 96GB but I wouldn't mind taking that spare rio of yours off your hands.

Well said.

While many folks have enough character to realize the internal consequences of doing the wrong thing, many of the rest of us have to have made a big mistake first to understand the guilt that comes with one. Unfortunately, there are a few that are psychopathic enough that this lesson is never learned.

I feel confident in assuming that Yz33d is just a kid. I wouldn't be surprised if he just hasn't learned that lesson yet. Let him live on his own for a while and be given the chance to make those mistakes. Hopefully, he'll learn.

The problem is, of course, you have to believe its wrong in the first place. While I totally agree with you and believe that copying copy protected music is wrong, I fear that Yz just doesn't agree that this is wrong. That’s why we have laws, so that he will comply even if he doesn't agree with the general population about matters of copy protection. Of course, as he correctly pointed out, we have no way of policing this particular law breaking, so the laws don't really help very much. This is the reason (well this and complete ignorance and stupidity) that the record companies are trying to "take the law into their own hands" and keep people from illegally copying their music.

-Jeff

Exactly, FerretBoy. I don't think it's wrong. You see, inorder to steal something, you have to actually take it away from someone else. "But you're taking away their business!!" Well I suppose Burger King is taking away McDonald's business. You buy a cd. That cd, along with everything on it, is yours. You buy a computer. That computer is yours to use as you wish. Put your two belongings together and bam, you have an mp3. Stealing? I don't think so. If you bought two rabbits from a rabbit shop, let 'em do what they gotta do, and then you wind up with more little baby rabbits. Are you stealing from the rabbit shop? Or are the new little bunnies rightfully yours?

I'm not a thief and I don't cheat. But I'm not gonna let some record company try to cheat me. After all, they don't have to sell any cd's. It's the trade they've chosen. Once our transaction is made, I believe that I have the right to do as I please with MY cd, just as they have the right to spend their money as they see fit. Now don't get me wrong. I think they have every right to implement any kind of copy-protection contraptions into their products before I buy them. (Afterall, the rabbit shop can neuter their rabbits before they offer to sell them.) But once I own it, the government shouldn't be able to tell me how I can and can't use it. That's not right.

And to clarify things, copy-protection is a gray area as far as legality goes. I don't think anyone's ever been prosecuted for this type of thing in the US.

PaulH, is there any way you can implement a killfile on the BBS, please?

wfaulk, why is it that you can't tolerate anyone having an opinion other than your own?

Along with the right to free speech comes the right not to listen.

Rob

<ignoring invalid comparisons>


I'm not a thief and I don't cheat. But I'm not gonna let some record company try to cheat me. After all, they don't have to sell any cd's. It's the trade they've chosen. Once our transaction is made, I believe that I have the right to do as I please with MY cd, just as they have the right to spend their money as they see fit. Now don't get me wrong. I think they have every right to implement any kind of copy-protection contraptions into their products before I buy them. (Afterall, the rabbit shop can neuter their rabbits before they offer to sell them.) But once I own it, the government shouldn't be able to tell me how I can and can't use it. That's not right.


This is inconsistent. Copy protection *would* be cheating you out of your right to create a backup copy.

You're right about the 'stealing' legality, although I fail to see where anybody here mentioned 'stealing'...so where did that come from?

I think the point is that most people recognise that if everybody copied music that no-one would buy it and then there would be no new music. Therefore the stance that we take has to be a moral one as the legal position does not protect the copyright holders anymore.

Unfortunately, the proposed remedies to this situation, be they legal or technological, screw the consumer out of their existing rights. And continued wholesale abuse of the 'right to make a copy' provision of the copyright laws only add to the RIAA/MPAA's motivation to chase these remedies.

There is another tangent to the original subject of this thread. A court could easily take the position that the price paid for the player included monies for the music content - and that would be copyright infringement.

I'm still cracking up about the bunnies...

"I think the point is that most people recognise that if everybody copied music that no-one would buy it "

If everybody changed their own oil, JiffyLube would be out of business.

JiffyLube provides a service. Music is a product (and I'm not talking about the physical medium on which it is delivered). Anyone with enough training can identically reproduce JiffyLube's service without relying on the initial condition that JiffyLube provided the service. You cannot reproduce any piece of music without relying on the fact that it has already been produced. This argument also applies to your equally idiotic Burger King/McDonald's argument, as well as any other similar non sequiturs you might espouse.

It is not your opinion that bothers me. Well, it does a little, but that's not why I want the ability to ignore you. It's your ridiculous troll-like zeal combined with your use of totally asinine arguments. And my lack of fluency in the arts of debate doesn't help, either. (I may actually go study some in my spare time because of your ridiculous statements, and for that impetus I thank you.)

On this board, before you came along, we were able to have interesting debates about things, because we tended to be able to control our outrageousness and actually have a debate about the issues involved. Now that you're here, everything turns into an argument based on the fact that your viewpoint is supreme. Every counter-argument is responded to with ad hominem attacks or tangential non sequiturs. And everyone else, to whom I'd actually be interested in listening, gets disgusted and just leaves, leaving the debate hanging and unfinished.

You're a conversation killer, and it is for that reason that I want you to go away. I'd be happy to provide you help with your empeg, and I'd be delighted to see you provide help to someone else. I no longer have the patience to watch you turn into someone who can rationally state and defend his opinion. I'm now not sure you're capable of it.

If everybody changed their own oil, JiffyLube would be out of business.

Duh....yes. Patently obvious. And your point would be what exactly?

Hi.

If everybody changed their own oil, JiffyLube would be out of business.

Even though I do not know JiffyLube, I suppose it is some sort of service that changes oil on vehicles. This is the problem:
Music is a sort of product that you are unable to produce yourself, you are only able to copy it. Even if I might see a point in saying that you simply provide the service of copying the music, and thus you don't harm the musicians directly, that still doesn't give you the right to do that. For two reasons:
First, law (at least in Germany, and I assume law in the US is similar) only allows copying for _your_ private use. According to german law, this means that you might copy someone elses (sic!) music, and keep that copy. You might also copy your music for your own purposes (including your family members using of the copy). Copying your music and giving the copy to a friend is already in the grey area. Strictly spoken, it is illegal, but there is a way around that: You are allowed to lend your music to a friend, and you are also allowed to help a friend copy your music for him, so you could say "here, I lend this CD to you. Now give it to me, asking me to copy it for you, and I can legally do so." BUT: You are not allowed to make a copy of a copy, except for your own personal use (which does not include your family in this case). Due to common law interpretations (by judges), Up to three or four copies is almost always legal, making more than 6-7 copies most certainly is illegal.
There is a good reason behind this: You are not only harming the music industry, but also the musicians that get a lot of their payment through that very industry, let alone their marketing services etc.
I wouldn't mind if you just harmed the industry (Warner, Sony Music etc.), but I DO mind that you harm the musicians. Sure, most of them have more money than they need, but they earned that money by providing enjoyable music to all of us. That is the main point: If most people where sharing your opinion on copying, noone would become a musician anymore, because it simply wouldn't pay.

In buying the music, you (or the friend you copied it from) agreed on the rules under which the music was sold, and those rules are set by law, like it or not. If you don't like it: Don't buy. If you buy, follow the rules. That also applies to whoever buys some music: You buy, so you have follow the rules.

And regarding copy protection:
It is my honest opinion that no software (which, in a wider sense includes music, literature etc.) should be copy protected (well, it should actually be called "copy disabled" or something), and that any media that is suitable for copying and any machine used for copying (CD-Writers, Printers, Copy machines,...) should be sold with some additional tax applied, which is distributed among the programmers/artists based on original value, number of copies sold etc. And that any user should have the right to make backup copies of the software he owns, and should also have the right to copy any software he lends from someone else. Still, whoever made the original version should have the right to deny any of those copying rights, except the rights to make personal backup copies and copies needed for the intended use (like making a "copy" of software in the RAM of a computer is needed to run that software). Intended use means the use the author/artist had in mind, because the owner of a software might have intended copying it, while the author wanted it to be run on a computer.

Enough of that, I think I made my opinion clear.

cu,
sven