"Tony Antoniou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I'd be willing to bet all the money to my name that 99% of the songs
>>on Napster are available at Tower, Virgin, or an online CD store.
>
>Wrong bet. There's a lot of stuff out there that just can't be found at ANY
>CD store, and believe me, I have tried all over the world for some stuff
>that I've landed!
And that stuff fits in the 1% of stuff that you can't get at most stores.
The fact remains that in terms of content, the vast, vast, vast majority
of stuff available through Napster is easily available commercially. And
that fact is completely logical -- *everything* available through Napster
is stuff that someone bought at some point, and then allows other people
to download. You do get a few files here and there that are out of print,
or that are only available overseas, but most files are easily available
because that's how they made their way onto Napster.
P.S. Just because they are out of print doesn't give you the right to
have them... ;-)
>Now the WHOLE misconception is that Napster is only providing an
>interface between people who have these files. Napster themselves do
>not rip CD's, do not store mp3's on their servers, and most certainly
>do not tell people to infringe copyright laws. They merely provide a
>simple interface for people to exchange their stuff ... like a
>network hub, on a major scale. After all, if Napster is at fault for
>the distribution of mp3's, then why don't we move on and wipe out IRC
>as well since a lot of pirated software gets exchanged via the DCC
>feature? It's the same thing, and don't you even dare try to tell me
>otherwise!
You're absolutely correct. The difference is a) It's the RIAA, not the
SPA ;-) and b) the volume of content transferred via Napster is enormous.
With IRC, you basically get the hardcore warez traffickers. Napster is
easily used by anyone. I have newbie friends who can barely use their
computer who have used Napster.
>That, to me, is the *real* issue, as it were. So yes, the bands
>involved in the lawsuits ARE scum, because they went about it all the
>wrong way by wanting to shut down Napster. To bar the users from
>their service was a "reasonable" countermeasure to the unwanted
>distribution of their music, but not to shut down the service itself.
But the *service* is encouraging pirating of music. And logistically,
there is absolutely no way at this point in time to only bar certain
users, or even to identify who those users are/were, as they can simply
sign back on with another ID.
>Hell, while we're at it, let's shut down the entire
>telecommunications system for also providing people with an interface
>to exchange stuff that they shouldn't be. When an obscene phone
>caller starts to misappropriate the use of the telephone system for
>his own illegal doings, do you see the police demanding that the
>telephone exchanges be shutdown and removed? No! So when someone
>"misappropriates" the use of Napster, it shouldn't be shut down
>either. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Telecommuncation lines are used for a myriad of things. Napster is used
for one thing -- exchange of copyrighted music. The fact that a tiny
minority of those exchanges is legal is simply a facade for the company
to hide behind. It was designed, and is primarily used, as a way for
people to get copies of music they don't own.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
