"Tony Antoniou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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.
Under U.S. law, music is automatically copyrighted as soon as it's put
onto a medium.
>In fact, the hard to find stuff comes from bands who seek the
>recognition by releasing mp3's of themselves.
Yes, there are MP3s put out by bands purposely to increase exposure, but
those files are irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is the wholesale
copying of copyrighted materials without permission.
>And there are plenty of users who are new to PC's yet have found IRC
>just as easy to use as well.
LOL. IRC is still arcane compared to email, Napster, the web.
>>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?
But that's the wrong analogy. MiniDisc is analogous to the MP3 *format,*
not Napster. Napster is analogous to MiniDisc "trading" forums used by
people looking to do the same thing as Napster users -- copy music they
don't own.
Look, I should make this clear. Legally, I think the action taken against
Napster is a bit questionable under U.S. law. They aren't actually
*doing* the illegal actions. However, my problem is the self-serving
"rationales" people continually use to justify the stealing of music.
People who have this Mary Poppins-like ideal of how Napster is this
wonderful thing that lets new bands get noticed and where no one really
steals anything. We all know that's not true. Napster itself knows that's
not true.
>>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.
LOL. That's like saying "prove that the car was designed purely as a form
of transportation ;-) Even the guy who invented Napster has said that's
what it was created for. The entire system is set up to do one thing:
find music you want and copy it. And the overwhelming majority of music
transferred is stuff people don't already own. You know it, I know it,
people freely admit it.
>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.
Sorry, that's not the case.
P.S. Rick, should we stop now, before people start killing each other? ;-)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
