NYT Promotes File Sharing
aisaac writes "An article in today's NYT comments intelligently on filesharing. Key points: downloading music is not illegal, peer-to-peer enables this useful and legal activity, and a list of good places to find good music online (including the American Memory Collection at the Library of Congress. The Induce Act is briefly mentioned without analysis, but the article does not mention that some of the Act's sponsors and cosponsors have expressed a willingness to consider ammendments to restrict the application of the Act. (This according to a letter I received from Senator Sarbanes.) Let's keep the pressure on!" A Congress call-in day is being organized.
why dont people actually support the artists and buy their music... they are just trying to earn a living like everyone else
Replying to my own post...
My sarcasm tags got coded as HTML! Darn no post editing!
Big Dig-ing until the money is gone...
The New York Times....The simple fact that they ran the story turns me off.
And I don't care what anyones says, if you share copyrighted material like music that you paid for with other in mass, you are stealing, plain and simple.
teh editors are pro-kerry/pro-terrorist and hate america, bunch of ultra liberal socialists. They're only goal in life is to bring down america and capitalism ! No Wonder they endorse the idea of stealing intellectual property... god damn communists.
I'm done with this thread, turning the radio back on so I can listen to the Doctor of Democracy, Rush Limbaugh. Bye.
Skype Me! username: john_allen_mohammed
Garcia is an anti-slash.org troll who reposts previous comments to gain karma.
You have been warned.
Well by my count, FurthurNET is 1 of 20 sources in the article, so I'm not sure that really jusifies Slashdot's headline: "NYT Promotes File Sharing"
Furthermore, FurthurNET is only for sharing authorized work, isn't it?
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
What's your point?
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
I think it's perfectly reasonable and acceptable that big business is going after some of the file sharing networks on nothing more than "guilt by association".
Sure, there are legal downloads on nearly all of the services, but the vast majority on, say, Kazaa is illegal. If police knew a road was being by 95 drug trafficers and 5 ordinary citizens, they'd be in the right to close the road -- regardless if those 5 raised a stink about it or not.
Quite frankly, I don't think there's a single popular P2P service ("popular" defined as, say, 1,000,000 or more users) that has a great majority of legal files over illegal. Closing down the services is just like closing down that road.