It really seems that most of the people who are involved with the legality of MP3 music, such as in the MP3.com and the Naspter issues, really have no idea how the technologies work, or the signifigant legal benifits these offer. They seem to only look for the piracy issues in new forms of technolegy, and then deem that this is the only reason these technologies exist. It is a sad state of affairs when the future of high tech companies is descided by techno-illiterate people.
Since Napster is nothing more than a computer program which allows remote users to connect their computers together and relies on the users themselfs to govern the legal trade of MP3 music( with no MP3 files ever actually go through or reside on the Naspter servers) do you feel that other companies who provide archetecture that the MP3 files go though(such as the phone company, who provide the phone line) should also be held legally liable for MP3 trade?
Slashdot Mirror
It really seems that most of the people who are involved with the legality of MP3 music, such as in the MP3.com and the Naspter issues, really have no idea how the technologies work, or the signifigant legal benifits these offer. They seem to only look for the piracy issues in new forms of technolegy, and then deem that this is the only reason these technologies exist. It is a sad state of affairs when the future of high tech companies is descided by techno-illiterate people.
Since Napster is nothing more than a computer program which allows remote users to connect their computers together and relies on the users themselfs to govern the legal trade of MP3 music( with no MP3 files ever actually go through or reside on the Naspter servers) do you feel that other companies who provide archetecture that the MP3 files go though(such as the phone company, who provide the phone line) should also be held legally liable for MP3 trade?