Kakki wrote: > During the > Clinton admininstration many rules were tightened up so it is not quite the > picture to assume that Reagan "dismantled" everything and nothing has > changed since his time. In fact, the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 > gave entities such as Clear Channel the green light to barrel on full steam > ahead.
I just said it started with Reagan and continues to this day with Colin Powell's son and everybody else in Dubya's administration being in bed with big money. And yes, Clinton, that Rep in Dem's clothing, too. > >and killed Napster, which, even though a copyright infringer, gave people > something they > > want- a single source for musical downloads. > > I still can't agree with the legitimacy of Napster just because it gives > people something they want. Myself and a lot of people want a million bucks > too but that doesn't mean I have the right to go take it from someone. > My point wasn't that Napster was OK- I believed from the start, and still believe that they were infringing on copyrights by broadcasting and distributing intellectual property without permission. But it was a golden goose that the majors could have used-if they could have gotten their spit together. Instead, their greed and divisiveness resulted in several splinter sites and download prices that are often too high. Napster's obstinance in insisting they were not doing anything illegal was also part of the reason accord wasn't reached. RR
