On Thu, Aug 17, 2006, E L wrote about "Re: DMCA �??�½??�??�½??�??�½?�¨�??�½?�¥ - �??�½?�¢�??�½??�??�½?�¨�??�½?? �??�½??�??�½?�¦???????�¨":
> I don't see your point,
> What are you trying to prove? That it's not a perfect suggestion? well it's
> not.
> What other options do you have? You rather ISP hunting the internet for
> copyright infrigments?
My only suggestion is: go back to the status quo of 199 (or better yet,
1978, before the copyright extension in the US). There's simply no need
to change the laws. This is my view.
People who continue to copy copyrighted files illegally will continue to
be offenders. Those who want to follow the law will need to use legal
alternatives - buying CDs, using Apple's ipod service or new ones that
will appear, listen to radio (on FM, cable or the Internet), and so on.
The status que doesn't work, first of all no one knows if its actually legal or not to download files
second of all the copyright holding companies are very not happy with it.
You get a legally unclear situation, where both sides lose.
> So my question is simple, between the this and the other model which is now
> pushed in USA and latly in europe as well
> what do you prefer?
> Cause when things come to shove that the two options you got.
I have a slight preference to your model, but I ultimately prefer the status
quo, not either of these alternatives (one "nevela", the other "trefa").
Nither the downloaders (which want to enjoy music without being hunted down) or the copyright holding companies
(who wants to get paid without all the legal battles) are happy. If the copyright holders will get their way we all lose
if the people will get their way we all lose. It only makes sense to find a comprimise.
Ely
