Re:The RIAA's problem began 15 years ago...
on
RIAA CEO Speaks
·
· Score: 1
You are PROFOUNDLY IGNORANT of the AHRA and its application to Napster.
Digital copies, not analog copies, are stolen via Napster; therefore, they are not covered by the AHRA.
Non-commercial use does indicate not merely that no money was exchanged. For example, if you make a copy of something that you would have purchased otherwise, this is commercial use (i.e. you gained {saved} money from it). A penny saved is a penny earned; which part of this don't you get? There are several cases which prove this, and the precendent was set many years ago. The non-commercial use clause means making a copy for your car, not distributing it to 40 million strangers online. Additionally, Napster Inc. is commercial and has a huge revenue base (investment). Which part of this are you too slow to understand?
Finally, the US Patent and Copyright Office (the owner of the AHRA) specifically said that they did not envision any parts of the law to apply to a Napster-like system. So you (who are not even a laywer, let alone an expert on copyright law) think you are more expert on the subject than the body who defined it?
Slashdot Mirror
You are PROFOUNDLY IGNORANT of the AHRA and its application to Napster.
Digital copies, not analog copies, are stolen via Napster; therefore, they are not covered by the AHRA.
Non-commercial use does indicate not merely that no money was exchanged. For example, if you make a copy of something that you would have purchased otherwise, this is commercial use (i.e. you gained {saved} money from it). A penny saved is a penny earned; which part of this don't you get? There are several cases which prove this, and the precendent was set many years ago. The non-commercial use clause means making a copy for your car, not distributing it to 40 million strangers online. Additionally, Napster Inc. is commercial and has a huge revenue base (investment). Which part of this are you too slow to understand?
Finally, the US Patent and Copyright Office (the owner of the AHRA) specifically said that they did not envision any parts of the law to apply to a Napster-like system. So you (who are not even a laywer, let alone an expert on copyright law) think you are more expert on the subject than the body who defined it?
You're so stupid, you should be banned from the internet.