Yeah, those retired New York City public workers are real capitalist swine (read the article).
Pensions make up massive amounts of the stock market through sheer weight of numbers, it's hardly a bad call making sure they're getting everything they should for their members retirement funds, is it?
If OpenSource software does become a real competitor to M$ (and we're talking % here, not the quality of the software) then I think the programmers will get paid to write it full time.
Where will this money come from? Support contracts and manuals. Ask IBM where they make a good wegde of their cash right now. Supporting the crap Mr Gates pedals, that's where.
The problem here is determining when an MP3 is illegal. How can it be said which of these are trading illegally. Is it a legal requirement that for me to have a legal copy of something I already own, I have to have made the copy personally?
It's less about the copying (that's an offence by the individual, not Napster) more about unauthorised publication of copyright material.
If copyright material were posted to Slashdot by someone other then the copyright owner, then Slashdot would be required to remove the material from the site. If they refused to do this then I'm sure similar legal procedings would take place.
By compiling a list of users trading their songs, Metallica are trying to get Napster to follow through on the promise to ban users which do so. If Napster fail to do this then the band has a stronger leg to stand on.
I think the standard schpeel on CDs says a lot... "Unauthorized copying, hiring, lending, public performance and broadcast of this record is prohibited".
There are specific situations where direct authorizatrion isn't needed (backup copies of already purchased products, for example), however what Napster (and it's users) are doing certainly doesn't fall under that, as they are broadcasting the material over the net without Metallica's consent.
Granted, IANAL, but this sure as hell ain't legit.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, those retired New York City public workers are real capitalist swine (read the article).
Pensions make up massive amounts of the stock market through sheer weight of numbers, it's hardly a bad call making sure they're getting everything they should for their members retirement funds, is it?
If OpenSource software does become a real competitor to M$ (and we're talking % here, not the quality of the software) then I think the programmers will get paid to write it full time.
Where will this money come from? Support contracts and manuals. Ask IBM where they make a good wegde of their cash right now. Supporting the crap Mr Gates pedals, that's where.
The problem here is determining when an MP3 is illegal. How can it be said which of these are trading illegally. Is it a legal requirement that for me to have a legal copy of something I already own, I have to have made the copy personally?
It's less about the copying (that's an offence by the individual, not Napster) more about unauthorised publication of copyright material.
If copyright material were posted to Slashdot by someone other then the copyright owner, then Slashdot would be required to remove the material from the site. If they refused to do this then I'm sure similar legal procedings would take place.
By compiling a list of users trading their songs, Metallica are trying to get Napster to follow through on the promise to ban users which do so. If Napster fail to do this then the band has a stronger leg to stand on.
I think the standard schpeel on CDs says a lot... "Unauthorized copying, hiring, lending, public performance and broadcast of this record is prohibited".
There are specific situations where direct authorizatrion isn't needed (backup copies of already purchased products, for example), however what Napster (and it's users) are doing certainly doesn't fall under that, as they are broadcasting the material over the net without Metallica's consent.
Granted, IANAL, but this sure as hell ain't legit.
See a Note from Metallica and On-Line Chat Transcript.