Now I'll finish up.
Adios,
LarZ
--------------- TAMA - The Strongest Name in Drums ---------------
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
Of Dan Frakes
Sent: Sunday, 30 July 2000 9:23
To: MDList
Subject: RE: MD: Napster
>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.
However, copyright is not in force for an indefinite period of time. A long
time, yes, but not indefinite. Therefore, a lot of really old (and we're
talking as far back as ancient phonograph-era classics) musical productions
are no longer bound by international copyright.
>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.
But you can't hold Napster responsible. That is the crux of the argument
here.
LOL. IRC is still arcane compared to email, Napster, the web.
So you would lead yourself to believe.
>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.
That is the correct analogy. Let's not forget the RIAA's earlier intentions
to clamp down on mp3 technology itself. Anything with a record button is
capable of contravening copyright laws, and irrespective of the transport
used in conjunction with the media, it's the people using the media who are
responsible, not the couriers of the media. That's like me giving a box of
cocaine to be delivered by a major courier to the recipient only to find
that the couriers were busted for trafficking the drugs when it was clearly
me who is to be blamed for the whole situation. It just doesn't make sense,
and neither does the case against Napster.
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.
Indeed, but that is not to suggest that Napster actively encourages the act
of music piracy. Therefore, Napster should not be held responsible just as
Sony weren't later held responsible for the video piracy that flourished
with the advent of home video recorders. I'm not justifying the consistent
contravention of copyright law. Hell, as a musician, I should feel more
passionate about it than anyone else here, but what I am justifying is the
wrongful beating down of someone who is acting merely as an interface,
rather than a key player in the contravention of copyright law.
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.
I think the retort you seek to my original statement would be along the
lines of 'That's like saying "prove that the car was designed purely to
break the speed limit" '. Remember, I said that prove to me that Napster was
designed to break copyright law, intentionally. It was created for the
exchange of music, but not *specifically* copyrighted music. But that is not
to suggest that the motor vehicle invented for you was to be used for
breaking the speed limit as often as you can either. Motor vehicle
manufacturers don't design their cars with the mindset that they will be
used to break the speed limit, but they know their vehicles will be capable
of that. Do you see the police chasing the motor vehicle manufacturers, or
the drivers of the vehicles?
So just as cars can be abused, and contravene laws, so can Napster. If
police chase the driver in charge of the vehicle, it should only stand to
reason that the RIAA should be chasing after the users of Napster, and not
Napster themselves. It's analogous. The RIAA are just taking the easy way
out of the whole thing, and taking the illogical approach. What is it that
makes it so hard for you to understand this?
>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.
Something yet to be finalised in a true court of law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
