Granted, Napster could be described as a file sharing system, but it ONLY exists to share MP3 files, a good portion of which are protected by copyright.
So what is next. Can Chevrolet be sued because: "A great many cars are transporting drugs across the border -- Their big trunks and fast engines are just too powerful, and can carry too much. They must be stopped".
I just don't see how taking down this ONE file sharing program solves anything.
The RIAA is at fault here. While they have a leagal leg to stand on, they are targeting the wrong crowd and using the wrong method.
I dont think that you need a social theory background to understand what is happening here. There is an OVERWHELIMG demand for a way to trade music online; Something that, by itself, is not illegal. The RIAA is being so shortsighted and foolish in this matter by targeting the medium, not the demand. THAT is why people are so upset. Not becuase we want our WAREZ d00dZ!
Those folks at the RIAA actually have a reason for what they are doing!
You are right, they do have a reason. The REASON however, is not one of such high morals as "defending their copyright", it is that of monatary gain / uequivical control. They see someone else getting a piece of the pie, and instead of actually using this tool to promote "their" artists, they do it the american way and sue.
I'm not saying that they are wrong to desire monatary gain, but get it straight. Their METHOD is enforcing their copyright, their REASON is something vastly different.
They are right - using Napster harms the artist. Using cigarettes harms your health.
Most importantly, I think you are failing to see the problem with the RIAA. I would point your to Courtney Love's piece on Salon.com (can't find the link) that gives an artists perspective to the whole mp3/napster/RIAA debate. In short, she blames the RIAA for stealing from the musicians. They force bands/artists who want to promote their music to, for all intents and purposes, sign every creative thought they have over to the RIAA.
While we may not like Microsoft as a business, I'd find it hard to condemn Microsoft for defending its copyright
I see your point, but I think that disagreeing with the RIAA goes far beyond disagreeing with their right to sue. Perhaps leagally they have this right, even ethically, but you can't so innocently break this argument down and say "They are just upholding their copyright." can you? I don't think that Microsoft or the RIAA has once been struck with that sort of thinking. They are looking for a tool to extend their wide sweeping arm of power through everything, this just happens to be it.
I think the reason that these stories are getting posted is because not everyone thinks that sharing music should be CONSIDERED piracy. There are a number of reasons why one would hold such a belief, ranging from music being an art form that should be shared, to the sharing of music actually ENCOURAGES people to buy albums/go to live shows. Most importantly we have seen that time and time again, artists have stepped forward and said "It is not us that hates [insert your favorite music sharing program here], it is the RIAA; They see it as cutting into their profits." Well, Lars aside anyway.:)
I think that you are really simplifing the issue by just saying "software that promotes rampant piracy". The fact that this topic poses so many interesting questions, and is such an IMPORTANT issue to talk about in a global network environment, demands its continual mention.
If that's your attitude, then why do you have a link embedded in your.sig? Wouldn't it be better to just have plain text?
Because this is a Web-based discussion board, not a listserv. You would be suprised at the crap I receive over HTML email. I would think that the original poster would agree that HTML email is becoming pretty standard, and was half tounge-in-cheek saying that HTML email was a "bug not a feature".
Slashdot Mirror
Granted, Napster could be described as a file sharing system, but it ONLY exists to share MP3 files, a good portion of which are protected by copyright.
So what is next. Can Chevrolet be sued because: "A great many cars are transporting drugs across the border -- Their big trunks and fast engines are just too powerful, and can carry too much. They must be stopped".I just don't see how taking down this ONE file sharing program solves anything.
The RIAA is at fault here. While they have a leagal leg to stand on, they are targeting the wrong crowd and using the wrong method.
I dont think that you need a social theory background to understand what is happening here. There is an OVERWHELIMG demand for a way to trade music online; Something that, by itself, is not illegal. The RIAA is being so shortsighted and foolish in this matter by targeting the medium, not the demand. THAT is why people are so upset. Not becuase we want our WAREZ d00dZ!
never would have guessed that password....
You are right, they do have a reason. The REASON however, is not one of such high morals as "defending their copyright", it is that of monatary gain / uequivical control. They see someone else getting a piece of the pie, and instead of actually using this tool to promote "their" artists, they do it the american way and sue.
I'm not saying that they are wrong to desire monatary gain, but get it straight. Their METHOD is enforcing their copyright, their REASON is something vastly different.
They are right - using Napster harms the artist. Using cigarettes harms your health.
Most importantly, I think you are failing to see the problem with the RIAA. I would point your to Courtney Love's piece on Salon.com (can't find the link) that gives an artists perspective to the whole mp3/napster/RIAA debate. In short, she blames the RIAA for stealing from the musicians. They force bands/artists who want to promote their music to, for all intents and purposes, sign every creative thought they have over to the RIAA.
While we may not like Microsoft as a business, I'd find it hard to condemn Microsoft for defending its copyright
I see your point, but I think that disagreeing with the RIAA goes far beyond disagreeing with their right to sue. Perhaps leagally they have this right, even ethically, but you can't so innocently break this argument down and say "They are just upholding their copyright." can you? I don't think that Microsoft or the RIAA has once been struck with that sort of thinking. They are looking for a tool to extend their wide sweeping arm of power through everything, this just happens to be it.
I think the reason that these stories are getting posted is because not everyone thinks that sharing music should be CONSIDERED piracy. There are a number of reasons why one would hold such a belief, ranging from music being an art form that should be shared, to the sharing of music actually ENCOURAGES people to buy albums/go to live shows. Most importantly we have seen that time and time again, artists have stepped forward and said "It is not us that hates [insert your favorite music sharing program here], it is the RIAA; They see it as cutting into their profits." Well, Lars aside anyway. :)
I think that you are really simplifing the issue by just saying "software that promotes rampant piracy". The fact that this topic poses so many interesting questions, and is such an IMPORTANT issue to talk about in a global network environment, demands its continual mention.
-- leppi
If that's your attitude, then why do you have a link embedded in your .sig? Wouldn't it be better to just have plain text?
Because this is a Web-based discussion board, not a listserv. You would be suprised at the crap I receive over HTML email. I would think that the original poster would agree that HTML email is becoming pretty standard, and was half tounge-in-cheek saying that HTML email was a "bug not a feature".