This is about all I'm going to say about it because sometimes, you just get
tired of punching the information into someone more than once .... if you
get my drift 3#-)
Adios,
LarZ
--------------- TAMA - The Strongest Name in Drums ---------------
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
Of Dan Frakes
Sent: Saturday, 29 July 2000 4:36
To: MDList
Subject: RE: MD: Napster
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... ;-)
But what else are we expected to do if we can't source them from anywhere
else? Let's not forget that the hard to find stuff is usually not
copyrighted to begin with anyway. In fact, the hard to find stuff comes from
bands who seek the recognition by releasing mp3's of themselves.
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.
a) It's still the same argument from the 2 parties - piracy
b) And there are plenty of users who are new to PC's yet have found IRC just
as easy to use as well. Granted, they can't perform a search like you can
with Napster, but you can still find what you need, with a little patience,
and get it down. It's still the same principle, only in different packaging.
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.
And our MD recorders encourage the piracy of music too. Do you find it
realistic to take action against those things as well? It's a bit of a case
of the pot calling the kettle black. Anything with a record or copy button
encourages piracy. So as I once said before, what's good for the goose is
good for the gander. There are many technologies released out there, with
legitimate intentions, and all of which are used with the most illegal
intentions, but they're the side effects. Sony were taken to court by
Universal many years ago when they released Betamax, because it too
encouraged the infringement of copyright. You didn't see them ban that now,
did you? Think logically dude, just try.
>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.
Prove it. If a fair justice system is based on being innocent until proven
guilty, prove to me that it was designed purely for piracy. Never mind the
primary use, because that's the sole responsibility of the people who use
and abuse the service. But prove to me that it was designed purely for
piracy. Because some lawyer allegedly found emails from Napster's executives
allegedly stating that they expected piracy to be rampant and that even they
had illegal MP3's on their PC's in their offices, that constitutes evidence?
Who is to say that those emails weren't concocted by an outsider who had
nothing to do with Napster?
Whether such legitimate exchanges are set up for a fa�ade or not is not the
issue at all, and you damn well know it. Because if that's the case, why not
spare a thought for the millions of people copying that Metallica CD to CD
(or MD) for a friend? Or for those who are making copies of their favourite
video, Bambi? Anything with a record or copy button can be abused, and to
single out one technology when all are just as susceptible, and all are
available to the masses, and all can be afforded by the masses, is clearly
wrong. That is not justice. You might argue that Napster doesn't cost as
much as an MD recorder and whatnot, but that would indicate true
short-sightedness on your part. Think about how much that PC, with the cool
soundcard, and maybe a CD burner, cost. Sure you can get some cheap set ups,
but they're still within the same price range set up by tape recorders
through to super duper hard disk recorders.
You, as the judge and all other legal professionals involved in the
prosecution, are just simply not looking at the big picture. You've honed in
on one point and just gone all out for it, when you know that there is far
more to it than you would like to admit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
