On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 07:16:10AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This "absolute protection" did not seem to protect Napster, nor did > > > the home recording act. > > > > Despite their claims to the contrary, Napster's *primary function* was to > > facilitate the illegal distribution of copyrighted materials. That is > > clearly not the case with Debian. > > Ok, here's what I'm thinking: > > First off...
[huge diatribe snipped] I already told you I'm not getting into this with you. You seem to like to change the subject when anyone makes a point you don't want to address. You're also still trying to make all of the same points you were making the last time I posted, which means you're not really listening to anyone who's trying to explain things to you. > Napster, by the way, was enabling people to make recordings > of music at home. There was law on the books (the home audio > recording act) which seemed to say that these activities were > perfectly legal. Court ruled that they were not. No matter what the court ruled about Napster's CD ripping/copying ability, that's not what they originally got in trouble for. They got in trouble for making it easy for people to trade MP3's, by maintaining a repository of illegal music download locations. Debian isn't Napster. It's not even close. Stop comparing Debian to Napster. --Adam -- Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
