I believe when the cops do a sting they actually have to use real coke (as an example), and let the "stingee" take possession of it in exchange for money - once that transaction takes place, they drop the pretense of a coke deal and pull out the badges. The coke has to be real so as someone has said, you can't go to jail for buying powdered sugar in a bag, no matter how dramatic the circumstances.
So, I side with those who say that to be "caught" and served with a supoena for downloading the copyrighted CD file, you are going to actually have to be "caught" downloading an ACTUAL CD file. The sting can't traffic in bogus booty if the charges are to stick, I would think.
I think the whole Metallica thing stunk because Napster rolled over IMMEDIATELY by taking Metallica's word that those files they found were ACTUAL Metallica files. Napster should have said, prove it, and maybe we will comply. And that would have forced Metallica to go after users, which they claimed they didn't want to do - and that would have made their "case" all the harder to prove.
Re:Washington Post story..
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 1
I'm not so sure this is the "best" article I've read on Napster v. RIAA. I've yet to read one that wasn't without a bias against Napster. In this article in the Post, the author of the article goes out of her way to make fun of Chuck D, in hopes I would guess, of appearing "hip."
She has inserted things like "dig it," "baby," and "Chuckster" into the piece, which come off not only as pseudo-hip, but as condescensions of Chuck D's statements to Congress.
She may have some quotes as to the fast moving train that is open source software and of Napster and of technology in general; however, she doesn't believe a word of it. The bias in the article is evident whenever she digs, however, "subtle," at Chuck D.
And why would she do that? Why would she insert her "cute" opinions in a piece involving the little guy, Napster, versus the big guy, the RIAA? Is there no one in the United States big enough to question the RIAA and their tactics, including the almightly Washington Post without inserting sniggling little titters of derision directed at the supporters of open source, of Napster, of the future of the Internet and of music?
I sent who I think is her editor an email about this. Teresa Wiltz, the writer, does not have a Post email address.
I also described to her editor which demographic I fall under. I hope I surprised him. I may live in a college town in Florida, but that doesn't mean I am a college student. I once played one in the mid-70s, however.
Excellent comment among many here. With the huge corporate monies available to fight file sharing, I, too, expect we will see a long and continual media campaign (including news/feature stories taking the "Bronfman side") about the "dangers" of not only Napster and similar file sharers, but of the Internet itself - along the lines of the scare commercials for cable theft.
Bronfman is scary in that he invoked patriotism in this "battle" over the hearts and minds and pocketbooks of the internet users. Never a good thing. There are way too many people out there who still don't "get" the internet or computers and would just as soon be counted among the "patriots" than that of the scoundrels who are "stealing" stuff off the internet. Name calling, unfortunately, works to those who are afraid of the unknown, and Bronfman's so called ramblings should be taken seriously. He is a man who can throw money at judges, and/or, by his "stature" as a corporate man, intimidate the legislature of this nation into bending to his way of thinking.
And while he is dead wrong, he certainly has his own priorities straight - Wage a "war" on those who are interferring or will interfere or are perceived to interfere with his corporations' cash flow. This war is waged with bucks and influence peddling on Capitol Hill where policy is set and laws are made. Often those laws aren't made for you and me; they're made for them and their corporations. In order for this war to be "won," public opinion must be swayed which hence further sways Congress to their way of thinking.
And America loves a war - who is it that has a comedy routine on war, is that Carlin? War on Crime; War on Drugs; War on Poverty - and now War on Warez; War on Internet Pirates.
We are virtually powerless to affect policy given what it takes to do so, but we hold the keys to the internet. While Daddy may tell us how to drive the car, we ARE the car, and ultimately the likes of Bronfman and Company will fail.
But not before many have been sacrificed. I think we should take Bronfman at his word. If it is war he wants - well, he declared it, and its time to take up arms and begin to seriously fight the battles to come.
HISTORY: In 1916 Sam Bronfman bought the Bonaventure Liquor Store Company in Montreal and started selling liquor by mail order (the only legal way during Canadian Prohibition, which lasted from 1918 until the early 1920s). In 1924, with the help of his brother Allan, Bronfman opened the first family distillery in neighboring La Salle and took the name Distillers Corporation Limited. Bronfman, later known as "Mr. Sam," purchased the larger Joseph E. Seagram & Sons in 1928, went public, and changed his company name to Distillers Corporation-Seagrams Limited. During the 1920s Bronfman established a lucrative bootlegging operation that smuggled whiskey into the "dry" US. The company may have accounted for half of the illegal liquor crossing the border. In 1928 Bronfman, expecting the end of Prohibition in the US, began stockpiling whiskey. When Prohibition ended in 1933, Bronfman had the world's largest supply of aged rye and sour mash whiskeys. To further meet US demand, he also purchased 3 US distilleries in quick succession in the 1930s. Bootlegging had given whiskey a harsh image, which Bronfman sought to change by introducing his smooth, blended Seagram's 7 Crown in 1934.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe when the cops do a sting they actually have to use real coke (as an example), and let the "stingee" take possession of it in exchange for money - once that transaction takes place, they drop the pretense of a coke deal and pull out the badges. The coke has to be real so as someone has said, you can't go to jail for buying powdered sugar in a bag, no matter how dramatic the circumstances.
So, I side with those who say that to be "caught" and served with a supoena for downloading the copyrighted CD file, you are going to actually have to be "caught" downloading an ACTUAL CD file. The sting can't traffic in bogus booty if the charges are to stick, I would think.
I think the whole Metallica thing stunk because Napster rolled over IMMEDIATELY by taking Metallica's word that those files they found were ACTUAL Metallica files. Napster should have said, prove it, and maybe we will comply. And that would have forced Metallica to go after users, which they claimed they didn't want to do - and that would have made their "case" all the harder to prove.
I'm not so sure this is the "best" article I've read on Napster v. RIAA. I've yet to read one that wasn't without a bias against Napster. In this article in the Post, the author of the article goes out of her way to make fun of Chuck D, in hopes I would guess, of appearing "hip."
She has inserted things like "dig it," "baby," and "Chuckster" into the piece, which come off not only as pseudo-hip, but as condescensions of Chuck D's statements to Congress.
She may have some quotes as to the fast moving train that is open source software and of Napster and of technology in general; however, she doesn't believe a word of it. The bias in the article is evident whenever she digs, however, "subtle," at Chuck D.
And why would she do that? Why would she insert her "cute" opinions in a piece involving the little guy, Napster, versus the big guy, the RIAA? Is there no one in the United States big enough to question the RIAA and their tactics, including the almightly Washington Post without inserting sniggling little titters of derision directed at the supporters of open source, of Napster, of the future of the Internet and of music?
I sent who I think is her editor an email about this. Teresa Wiltz, the writer, does not have a Post email address.
I also described to her editor which demographic I fall under. I hope I surprised him. I may live in a college town in Florida, but that doesn't mean I am a college student. I once played one in the mid-70s, however.
Excellent comment among many here. With the huge corporate monies available to fight file sharing, I, too, expect we will see a long and continual media campaign (including news/feature stories taking the "Bronfman side") about the "dangers" of not only Napster and similar file sharers, but of the Internet itself - along the lines of the scare commercials for cable theft.
Bronfman is scary in that he invoked patriotism in this "battle" over the hearts and minds and pocketbooks of the internet users. Never a good thing. There are way too many people out there who still don't "get" the internet or computers and would just as soon be counted among the "patriots" than that of the scoundrels who are "stealing" stuff off the internet. Name calling, unfortunately, works to those who are afraid of the unknown, and Bronfman's so called ramblings should be taken seriously. He is a man who can throw money at judges, and/or, by his "stature" as a corporate man, intimidate the legislature of this nation into bending to his way of thinking.
And while he is dead wrong, he certainly has his own priorities straight - Wage a "war" on those who are interferring or will interfere or are perceived to interfere with his corporations' cash flow. This war is waged with bucks and influence peddling on Capitol Hill where policy is set and laws are made. Often those laws aren't made for you and me; they're made for them and their corporations. In order for this war to be "won," public opinion must be swayed which hence further sways Congress to their way of thinking.
And America loves a war - who is it that has a comedy routine on war, is that Carlin? War on Crime; War on Drugs; War on Poverty - and now War on Warez; War on Internet Pirates.
We are virtually powerless to affect policy given what it takes to do so, but we hold the keys to the internet. While Daddy may tell us how to drive the car, we ARE the car, and ultimately the likes of Bronfman and Company will fail.
But not before many have been sacrificed. I think we should take Bronfman at his word. If it is war he wants - well, he declared it, and its time to take up arms and begin to seriously fight the battles to come.
HISTORY: In 1916 Sam Bronfman bought the Bonaventure Liquor Store Company in Montreal and started selling liquor by mail order (the only legal way during Canadian Prohibition, which lasted from 1918 until the early 1920s). In 1924, with the help of his brother Allan, Bronfman opened the first family distillery in neighboring La Salle and took the name Distillers Corporation Limited. Bronfman, later known as "Mr. Sam," purchased the larger Joseph E. Seagram & Sons in 1928, went public, and changed his company name to Distillers Corporation-Seagrams Limited. During the 1920s Bronfman established a lucrative bootlegging operation that smuggled whiskey into the "dry" US. The company may have accounted for half of the illegal liquor crossing the border. In 1928 Bronfman, expecting the end of Prohibition in the US, began stockpiling whiskey. When Prohibition ended in 1933, Bronfman had the world's largest supply of aged rye and sour mash whiskeys. To further meet US demand, he also purchased 3 US distilleries in quick succession in the 1930s. Bootlegging had given whiskey a harsh image, which Bronfman sought to change by introducing his smooth, blended Seagram's 7 Crown in 1934.