Randy wrote: > 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.
Arrr! ;-) Reagan and antitrust law is a separate subject from Powell and the FCC. Although I will agree that decisions in one agency can effect the law in another. I don't like monopolies at all but I also don't like the government ruling every aspect of our society. It's a fine balancing act not to create a new monster while battling an old one. By the way, most of these people always being accused of being in bed with big money already have tons of money or were born to it so they really have no need to go around getting bribes, or going to bed with anything to increase their net worth. Unconscionable greed is not exclusive to one political party, but you know that. > 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. My take is the same as yours. And just as a disclaimer - I truly don't care what anyone else does with downloading off Napster or whatever - that's their business. Kakki
