Napster produced first generation sotware for sharing internet music files, etc. Napster acted as a server between those who wanted to share such files. The courts said no to that way of doing things.
Then, along comes another generation of software to enable people to share files directly betwen themselves. No intermediate server is needed. Morpheus is an example of this.
Such software providers as Morheus are now before the Supreme Court and the legality of their activities is in question.
Are they liable in aiding others to download music/video files on a free basis?
Should there be any restrictions on such downloads?
Nope. If the record labels want to prohibit sharing, quit making CD's and go back to cassettes.
I can't count the number of times that I've recorded copies of prerecorded tapes NT , but I never sold one . I've dubbed for others if they brought a blank , is that any different than file sharing ?
I can recall a time when the courts ruled that it was perfectly alright for a person to record copyrighted material for their own use as long as they didn't sell the copies for profit which would constitute theft . Now the recording industry claims that after decades of ripping us off at the register(yes they are culpable since they profit hansomely from that) that we are ripping them off by file sharing . Call me naive , but the very same courts ruled that it should be legal for the same stores that sell those recordings to also sell the technology to record from them based on the first example . Color me baffled on this one .
Since encryption technology exists , the satellite industry is a perfect example , why don't they just encrypt their product to prevent it from being rerecorded ? Only the most hardcore techno pirates have the gear to beat encryption schemes , so then the true thieves would be revealed . Of course then the innocent file sharers would once again find themselves deprived of the very rights that the courts granted to them in the first place ... [&o]
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
I haven't ever done anything with cassettes, but I have downloaded some songs to my computer. It's just so easy. If the music industry doesn't like it, they should have stuck with cassettes like God and General Motors intended.
__________________
You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride!
Actually, NT, with today's computer software and a $4 cable from Radio Shack, you can turn your cassettes into MP3 catalog's in no time. And a lot of people do it.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
it matters not what the supreme court says on this matter.
file sharing is here to stay, and the media conglomerates have a choice: they can fight it and lose, or they can embrace it and move with the technology.
it doesn't matter how they attempt to stop it. for any man made encryption device, there is a hacker who can teach people to crack it.
one hilarious example was the cd copy protection that was cracked by running a black sharpie around the outside of the cd. how many thousands of dollars was spent developing that "protection", only to be foiled by a two dollar sharpie?
the digital revolution is here. they can't stop it.
I think we have an obligation to protect copyrighted materials from illegal transfer. Come on, you've all read the disclaimers before.
"Copyright 2005. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be copied, sold, distributed, or displayed publicly without prior written permission from the publisher."
What good is that if we're not going to back it up with the law? Just because we can swap music and other protected materials doesn't mean we have the authority to do so.
People work to produce, record, market, distribute, and sell music. If you think they're making too much money (or whatever else you use to justify your theft), don't give them anymore! There are plenty of crappy bands in basements and garages who are more than happy to entertain you for free.
I think we have an obligation to protect copyrighted materials from illegal transfer. Come on, you've all read the disclaimers before.
"Copyright 2005. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be copied, sold, distributed, or displayed publicly without prior written permission from the publisher."
What good is that if we're not going to back it up with the law? Just because we can swap music and other protected materials doesn't mean we have the authority to do so.
People work to produce, record, market, distribute, and sell music. If you think they're making too much money (or whatever else you use to justify your theft), don't give them anymore! There are plenty of crappy bands in basements and garages who are more than happy to entertain you for free.
what i'm suggesting is that the record companies work within the emerging technology, rather than try to supress it.
what i'm suggesting is that the record companies work within the emerging technology, rather than try to supress it.
I don't care what they do or don't do--nothing forgives the theft of protected property. The law isn't void simply because record companies don't know jack about digital media. The law still has an obligation to step in.
Internet File Sharing
