"Tony Antoniou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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.
True, but those aren't the majority of songs being transferred via
Napster.
>>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.
You were specifically talking about how it's "OK" to download stuff
that's hard to find. Then there was discussion of how most of it's not
really hard to find. You replied that "the hard to find stuff comes from
bands who seek the recognition by releasing mp3's of themselves." To
which I replied as above. No where in that exchange was there any talk
about holding Napster responsible. In fact, nowhere did I contend that
they should be. The issue was whether or not it was "right" or "wrong" to
download MP3s, even if they were "hard to find."
>>LOL. IRC is still arcane compared to email, Napster, the web.
>
>So you would lead yourself to believe.
Again, as I mentioned to someone else a couple days ago, there's no
reason to be nasty. We can have civil discussions without that.
As for the content, do you really think IRC is as easy to use as Napster?
It's hard to believe that a tool where you have to type "#join..." etc.
and various other not-too-intuitive commands in a CLI is considered as
easy as one where you point and click "Find" and then "download." But
hey, we all have our opinions about what's easy and difficult in computer
interfaces. If everyone thought like me, we'd all be using Macs ;-)
>>>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.
Just like they tried to clamp down on cassettes, MiniDiscs, reel-to-reel,
etc. The correct analogy remains:
MP3 technology == other recording media.
>Indeed, but that is not to suggest that Napster actively encourages
>the act of music piracy.
I got a distinctly different impression when Napster was in its infancy.
*Now* they don't actively encourage it, because of legal worries, but I
remember when it first started. That was precisely what they offered -- a
way to get stuff you don't already have.
>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.
I'm closer to you on that point than on the other issue (copying of
music). The challenge here has been to keep the two topics separate.
>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.
Good point about the analogy. But I still believe that the main reason
for the invention of Napster (and even the creator has said as much) was
to copy stuff you don't own.
>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.
Fortunately, the vast majority of automobile use is within the speed
limit. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Napster use is to circumvent
buying albums ;-)
>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?
There is nothing about it that makes it "hard for me to understand." If
you've read all my posts on the topic, you'll see that in theory I agree
with you -- the real violators are those who copy stuff they don't own.
However, we still differ on what we believe the original intent of
Napster was. You claim it was for "legitimate transfer of music." I
believe it was to get stuff you don't have -- if Napster's main purpose
isn't to get copyrighted music, they'd change their infrastructure to
prevent the copying of copyrighted music. Obviously, I'm not going to
change your mind, I'm pretty convinced of my own position. But that's no
reason to disparage each other. We disagree. No biggie. There's no need
to drag it on forever. We'll both live ;-)
>>>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.
I was simply stating that it's not the case that I am not looking at the
big picture.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
