Amen! And its not only the defendants running from responsibility. In order to save time and not offend potential customers, the plaintiffs would rather sue technology- even if it means shutting down a resource for the legal trading of copyrighted material by artists that see it as a promotional tool. I guess encryption was just too obvious an answer.
skfcleary
"Is Seagram's going to name everyone in Alcoholics Anonymous too?"
Metallica & Dr. Dre claim Napster has cost them sales. Tom Petty, The Offspring, Public Enemy and thousands of signed and unsigned bands think of Napster as promotional tool. If Metallica wins the suit and Napster is shut down, can the bands that have lost their promotional tool sue Metallica for loss of sales or loss of potential sales? It would appear that every major label artist that has a dip in sales in a post-file trading environment could sue Metallica. A counter suit by unsigned bands for preventing them access is inevitable.
skfcleary
"We fought on the beaches of Normandy so you could buy all your products from four companies."
anonymous (but not for long) CEO of a Media Conglomerate
I read an article that was asking the same question. Apparently, the RIAA contributed over $800,000.00 dollars to PAC's in 1998 and most of the companies they represent are foreign owned!
One strange result from this could be Dr. Dre and Strom Thurmond being on the same side of an argument!
I disagree. It does set a dangerous precedent. If I type Metallica into the Alta Vista "images" search engine, it will provide me with a plethora of copyrighted images. If I download the image, and make t-shirts, should Alta Vista be shut down? You say that the vast majority of files that are shared by Napster are copyrigted. I would contend that with the commercialization of the internet, almost everything any search engine finds is also copyright protected. Do we determine the legality of a search by the percentage of copyright protected files it finds? What is the percentage? What about the artists that LIKE Napster? I take offense when an industry that has dragged its feet protecting its own product wants to determine how file formats are found rather than going after the actual infringers. If the New York Times can't sue Yahoo! for an article I search, steal and sell as my own, then how in the world can the recording industry sue Napster? I would love to know what the major search engine companies think about this lawsuit.
Slashdot Mirror
skfcleary
"Is Seagram's going to name everyone in Alcoholics Anonymous too?"
skfcleary
"We fought on the beaches of Normandy so you could buy all your products from four companies."
anonymous (but not for long) CEO of a Media Conglomerate
One strange result from this could be Dr. Dre and Strom Thurmond being on the same side of an argument!
I disagree. It does set a dangerous precedent. If I type Metallica into the Alta Vista "images" search engine, it will provide me with a plethora of copyrighted images. If I download the image, and make t-shirts, should Alta Vista be shut down? You say that the vast majority of files that are shared by Napster are copyrigted. I would contend that with the commercialization of the internet, almost everything any search engine finds is also copyright protected. Do we determine the legality of a search by the percentage of copyright protected files it finds? What is the percentage? What about the artists that LIKE Napster? I take offense when an industry that has dragged its feet protecting its own product wants to determine how file formats are found rather than going after the actual infringers. If the New York Times can't sue Yahoo! for an article I search, steal and sell as my own, then how in the world can the recording industry sue Napster? I would love to know what the major search engine companies think about this lawsuit.