|
|
Posted by Dave D on 12/31/05 20:22
"name" <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135988103.171869.153680@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OK, I'll keep this brief and reply to the most important points.
>>
>> No, an unjust, clunky law is *never* acceptable.
>
> Taxing p2p might equally well be unjust and clunky.
>
But it's a hell of an improvent on charging *every* internet user a tax to
cover downloads of copyrighted material.
>> I just don't get this idea where you believe that people would be
>> *forced*
>> to be compensated for their work, against their wishes. It doesn't have
>> to
>> be like that, even with your model. The money simply gets distributed
>> amongst copyright holders, it doesn't have to involve private individuals
>> offering their own material for free.
>
> But private individuals can be copyright holders just the same. If I
> write a story and post it on usenet, I'm the copyright holder of that
> story. If other people massively email that story against my will, that
> constitutes copyright infringement.
The key part being 'against your will'. What if I want my works to be freely
distributed?
> All I'm saying is that we don't have the technology to differentiate
> between various intentions and preferences regarding publication.
The owner of the material states this on his/her website or includes a
'readme' with his/her program. It works fine. We know he/she wants no
reimbursment for his/her work.
> It's even a question as to whether or not we have the technology to
> compensate for copyright infringement (in a fair way) in the first
> place. Since this would require a kind of global centralized agency
> exactly keeping track of what is copyrighted and by whom (and if
> applicable, under what terms).
>
How do you think the RIAA goons catch people downloading on P2P? They have a
database of artists who belong to their 'music mafia' organisation, and can
analyse data for their artists' material.
>>
>> > I think that the only fair way to ensure financial compensation would
>> > be
>> > to simply compensate anyone who contributes something originally,
>> > regardless
>> > whether they would like their creations to be shared freely or whether
>> > they would
>> > object to this.
>>
>> How do you propose to force someone to accept payment?
>
> Just like you force people to pay tax. If you come up with something
> original and your creation is shared massively, you get compensated
> financially for your efforts, whether you like it or not.
You didn't answer the question. How do you force someone to accept payment?
>The idea here
> is to have some kind of uniform scheme of compensation that doesn't
> require people to depend on major corporations (like the recording
> industry) to enforce their copyrights.
> The recording industry and their traditional means of production and
> distribution are made redundant by the internet. Copyright served a
> role in the past protecting traditional publishers from unfair
> competition amongst their peers and what's needed now is a reformed
> kind of copyright and associated financial recompense that works for
> the internet and acknowledges decentralized publication where everybody
> is free to copy/share anything they like.
>
>>
>> >We simply don't have the technology to differentiate
>> > between public domain and copyrighted material.
>>
>> How do you think the RIAA/MPAA et al do it? An ISP can filter out P2P
>> users
>> by monitoring for a bandwidth/port usage profile, then after they've
>> narrowed it down, analyse traffic for known copyrighted material.
>
> No need to filter out p2p use. You'd simply have to monitor or filter
> all internet traffic, which is done anyway because of terrorism
> threats.
> The problem lies with the notion of 'known copyrighted material'. Who
> decides what is copyrighted and what not?
>There is no global copyright
> agency yet.
> Copyright legislation differs for various countries and the internet is
> a global phenomenon requiring a global solution if we want to end up
> with a fair system of compensation for copyright infringement.
>
>>
>> > Alternatively we could completely abolish this approach and declare
>> > that anything belongs to the public domain.
>> >
>> >> The less governments get involved in the evolution of the WWW the
>> >> better. The more governments get involved, the less freedom of speech
>> >> we'll
>> >> see on the web.
>> >
>> > It's not necessarily a problem if the government gets involved,
>>
>> If governments get involved, the web would be a very different place- for
>> the worse.
>
> Governments are already involved. Freedom of speech online doesn't mean
> that you can peddle childpornography or plans for terroristic
> activities.
> So I'd have to rephrase my earlier statement "having the right to
> access any information I want" to "having the right to access any
> information I want as long
> as this information doesn't compromise the freedom of others".
>
>>
>> >as long
>> > as the government is not primarily motivated to protect the interests
>> > of major corporations but balances these with the rights of individual
>> > users.
>>
>> Can you see that happening? One has only to look at the relationship the
>> US
>> and the EU has with big business to see what will happen. You might want
>> to
>> take a look at the case of French MEP, Janelly Fourtou.
>>
>> http://swpat.ffii.org/gasnu/jfourtou/index.en.html
>>
>> Look who her husband is!
>>
>> She was also responsible for pushing draconian anti-P2P legislation
>> through.
>> How nice of her to abuse her position and push her husband's business
>> interests through, that's hardly putting the people first.
>
> I agree governments would have to undergo a major reformation before we
> can rely on them to come up with a fair system of compensation for
> copyright infringement.
>
We'll be waiting until armageddon for that to happen.
..
>> >
>> > Who's talking about private organisations?
>>
>> What do you think a recording company is? I'm talking about a government
>> 'shopping centre' tax charged to anyone entering, paid back to businesses
>> to
>> cover losses, which I don't think is a bad analogy. In your model, we the
>> internet users would have to pay a levy to the recording companies. The
>> fact
>> that the government would administer this and collect the money doesn't
>> change that fact.
>
> No, because recording companies will cease to exist.
You'll be waiting a long time for that pipe dream!
>> >> That's a pretty atrocious analogy! :-)
>> >
>> > Why?
>>
>> Because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!
>
> I think it does, given that most people using the internet are also
> likely to infringe copyrights
Not really, I don't believe that. There are websites out there which
infringe, but that's their lookout, not the person viewing the page.
>(similarly to how p2p users are likely to
> do it).
> Most people have infringed an occasional copyright by mailing a graphic
> ripped from a webpage in their xmas email.
That depends, it could fall under 'fair use', or the webpage owner might not
care.
> If people are not infringing copyrights while using the internet, they
> probably lack a clue what the heck is possible with their internet
> connection, rather than a deliberate decision not to engage in
> copyright infringement.
That's a bit cynical!
> I think the number of internet users that deliberately refrain from
> copyright infringement while extensively using the internet as a
> pastime is negligible.
>
But most people aren't diehard, savvy web surfers, that's the whole point!
Most people use the information super highway as... an information super
highway!
>>
>> >You might pay an information tax just in the case (which is kind
>> > of likely) that you end up downloading stuff made by someone who'd like
>> > to receive financial compensation for their creative efforts.
>>
>> You're contradicting yourself here. Why don't you apply this logic to my
>> proposal of a P2P tax? You argue that my idea is unfair because not
>> everyone
>> uses P2P for illegal downloads, yet argue that it's OK to charge
>> *everyone*
>> who uses the internet to pay, even though a lot of people will pay for
>> something they won't use?! You can't have it both ways! You say it's
>> likely
>> that people using the internet will end up downloading copyrighted
>> material.
>> I suggest it's *far* more likely a P2P user will end up doing just that.
>> There are far more legal web users than P2P users.
>
> I doubt it, given the number of people that email attachments (or use
> chatprograms to send files) with audio or graphics made by others.
Even if that were true, exchanging files via chat or email is a personal,
one to one deal. P2P puts a file in the shop window for all and sundry to
download. You might have noticed that the RIAA are focusing their efforts on
P2P, and that's because it is by far the most significant mode of
distribution.
> Peer to peer just means internet traffic between two individuals.
> If I post to a newsgroup, it's also peer to peer,
No it isn't. You uploaded it to a news server, it is not P2P by any stretch
of the term.
>whether or not my
> posting includes a binary attachment doesn't make any difference.
Difference to what?
> So maybe the whole discussion would make more sense if some terms would
> be more rigorously defined. 'P2p' and 'copyright infringement' are
> pretty vague terms when you think about them.
>
No they're not.
P2P= file transfer between two user's PCs, by popular definition-
specifically facilitated by a filesharing network.
Copyright infringement= the copying, use or distribution of a song, movie or
other work against the wishes of the author, creator or owner of that work.
>
> Well, what if their way of making a living has become technologically
> obsolete, like people making a living producing steam engines were put
> out of their job when petrol engines were invented?
>
Just because someone comes along with a new way of storing a reproduction of
their work does *not* change the fact they created that work and own the
rights to it.
> You are talking about the notion of copyright as it used to be
> interpreted in the context of centralized distributors competing with
> each other (not with consumers). They could use that argument to sue
> other centralized distributors for copyright infringement.
I am not! I am simply disputing the argument you appear to have put forward
that musicians, artists or whatever cannot own the rights to their work just
because the digital age is here.
> It wouldn't work anymore if, hypothetically speaking, people gained the
> mental ability to transmit thoughts to the degree that they would be
> able to communicate complete books, movies or concerts to each other,
> since it would no longer be practically feasible to randomly sue
> individuals when everybody has access to 'copyrighted material' so
> easily. Simply put, if people would acquire this ability miraculously
> somehow, it would put publishers out of business.
> I think this can be seen as a metaphor for what we currently see
> happening with the internet. It has become so easy for people to
> communicate complete works of art (music, movies, concerts, etc..) that
> publishers no longer have any role to play in the production and
> distribution of such works of art.
>
>>
>> The current model is deeply flawed, and I'd like to see the recording
>> industry extinct and all the greedy executives cleaning toilets, and the
>> artists getting paid fairly for their work. However IME this red herring
>> about 0s and 1s is usually a distraction used by people who cannot admit
>> to
>> themselves that they are accessing copyrighted works without paying for
>> it.
>
> I disagree. It's a fundamental discussion about what can be
> copyrighted.
> You can't just arbitrarily allow people to copyright some things and
> deny other
> people the right to copyright other things.
Who is denying anyone the right to copyright an original work?
>You need to have some kind
> of systematic
> definition of what it is that can be copyrighted and in this case
> technology has
> been rendering our commonly accepted definition of what can be
> copyrighted and what it means for something to be copyrighted as
> obsolete.
No it hasn't. You are basing all of this on the erroneous idea that a binary
reproduction of a work cannot be copyrighted as it is just a string of 0s
and 1s.
> The fact that a bitstring of a million bits can be copied just as
> easily these days
> as a single bit means that you can't allow people to copy bits but deny
> them their right to copy bitstrings as soon as bitstrings get fairly
> long.
> There simply is no practical way to sort out the bitstrings that can be
> copied from the ones that can't be copied, like there used to be a way
> to sort out which strings of characters could be written/printed in
> compliance with copyright legislation.
>
You can reduce anything to absurd arguments like this. A painting is just
colours on a canvas. A vinyl recording is just a squiggly line formed into a
spiral, a tape recording is just millions of changes of a magnetic field, a
book is just paper with ink lines all over it etc etc.
>>
>>
>> >So why should I be
>> > prevented to access
>> > certain bitstrings that are 'copyrighted'?
>>
>> You shouldn't be prevented from accessing them, provided you agree to pay
>> whoever created the works that those 0s and 1s represent.
>
> But who keeps track of who created what?
>
Wherever copyright is registered. The RIAA and MPAA will have a nice
database of their artists.
>>
>> >It doesn't make any sense.
>>
>> Sure it does. 0s and 1s in this instance are a (almost) perfect
>> reproduction
>> of someone else's labours. If they choose to exchange their work or a
>> reproduction of it for money, that is their right.
>
> So if I come up with 111100001011101011101010101111110100000, I can now
> start charging people money whenever they use that bitstring?
Please tell me you're joking. No, of course you can't copyright a simple
binary number. If I create a file using this number and give it a mp3, jpg,
avi etc extension, will I end up with an recognisable artistic creation? I
have a feeling you're going to argue next that an mp3 file is a huge binary
number. well, yes it is, but as a number it cannot be copyrighted. If it
forms a media file then it is no longer just a number but an audio or video
file.
>I can sue
> people for copyright infringement when people use that bitstring
> without paying me?
No, for the above reasons but also because you blatantly obviously did not
invent that bitstring.
> If not, how long do you suppose the bitstring has to be before I can
> start claiming money or sueing people for using my invention without
> paying me?
You can't, because it would still just be a number. If you create a media
file and convert it to a binary sequence, ie you digitise it, then that
would qualify for copyright because it is a representation of an artistic
work.
> I don't think it makes any sense whatsoever.
>
Because you cannot appear to make the practical, real world distinction
between a digitised recording and a plain binary number.
>>
>> > Note that 'anything' in the case of digital information amounts to a
>> > bitstring of arbitrary length. Since that can encode any book, movie,
>> > music, software, etc.. there could possibly be.
>> > This is a kind of controversial statement though, because a bitstring
>> > might also encode childpornography or other controversial 'content'.
>> > But on a philosophical level, I think it just doesn't make sense to try
>> > and distinguish between legal and illegal bitstrings for people to
>> > access or share.
>> >
>>
>> I disagree. I think people are hiding behind this '0s and 1s' philosophy
>> because they cannot come up with a cogent argument as to why they should
>> be
>> able to 'legally' access people's professional artistic creations without
>> reimbursing them.
>
> Just tell me how long bitstrings have to be before people or
> corporations can own the right to use them.
Length? It isn't just defined by length. If I really must answer such a daft
question (sorry, but it is :-)) then it would have to be of sufficient
length, and in the correct sequence, so that when it forms a media file,
(and this is the important point) it will play a recognised copyrighted
work. You cannot just pluck a binary number out of thin air and copyright it
for obvious reasons, most importantly because that number is unlikely,
probably by the most fantastic odds imaginable, to play a recognisable video
or audio file.
> Note that micro$oft might actually sue me if I dump their latest
> operating system on usenet in the form of a bitstring.
Obviously.
..
>
> But what is it exactly, according to you, that's unethical about p2p
> sharing of copyrighted material?
I don't think I have expressed that viewpoint.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> That's simply not true. You have a legal right to state how you want
>> >> your
>> >> product to be distributed, including insisting on *not* charging for
>> >> it.
>> >> One can back it up with enforcement if required. Have a look at the
>> >> GPL
>> >> licence.
>> >> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
>> >
>> > But how feasible is this in practice? Suppose I come up with a story
>> > and share it on p2p with an accompanying notice of the terms under
>> > which I allow distribution. What will I do when someone in China
>> > decides to say "fuck those terms"? I don't think it's practical for me
>> > to do anything about it (and I probably wouldn't even know about it),
>> > especially if it's just a kid who isn't doing it for financial gain.
>> >
>>
>> That's the whole point of GNU, to prevent people dishonestly making money
>> from other people's binary creations! It gives the right to modify and
>> distribute the work freely, with certain conditions, and forbids charging
>> for the software itself, though handling/distribution charges can be
>> made.
>> If a kid in China is distributing such material without financial gain,
>> then
>> GNU has worked!
>>
>> How is it enforceable? You create a work, apply the GNU licence and
>> distribute it. The GNU community would pick up rather quickly on someone
>> then claiming they came up with the idea and trying to market it!
>
> What makes people in the GNU community morally superior to the general
> population?
Morally superior? you've lost me there. They are simply a community of
software writers who want to contribute code, eg to Linux, for free, and try
and ensure their work gets distributed freely without someone claiming it as
their own or making a fat profit out of it. They're good guys, and maybe
that makes them 'morally superior' to the likes of Bill Gates, I suppose
it's down to how one views open source software. Some people think it's the
work of the devil, some love it.
> If people share things on p2p and say 'fuck those copyrights', I think
> they are just as likely to share things on p2p and say 'fuck that GNU
> licence'.
>
OK, you're really not getting this. That is what GNU is for. It's raison
d'etre is to ensure that software is distributed freely without profit. If
someone incorporates the GNU licence agreement in their software, it usually
means that the program can be freely distributed, including via P2P. If
P2P'ers say 'fuck the GNU licence' then share the program on P2P, then they
are pretty stupid as that is exactly what the software writer wanted! The
P2P'er isn't 'fucking' anything!
>> If they want to join the world of free movies and music, they only have
>> to
>> spend half and hour reading up on it. I wasn't born knowing how to use
>> P2P,
>> and neither was anyone else!
>
> But p2p also comes with spyware, virusses and other threats. Imagine
> your kid downloading the latest Harry Potter and it turns out to be a
> fake porn movie.
Now we're talking about the quality of downloaded movies? Even a savvy user
can get a bad download, and if people let their kids download freely without
checking, they have no cause for complaint.
> I do agree though that it's inevitable for people to end up using p2p
> as an alternative for buying overpriced music, books, movies, software,
> etc.. as soon as they have a
> cable internet connection.
>
>> >
>>
>> Ultimately though, most people prefer a nice original DVD with the
>> packaging
>> etc. If I like a movie after watching a download, I go and buy it! Most
>> people won't settle for movies filmed in a cinema or jerky, corrupted
>> rips,
>> they want the real McCoy. There'll always be a market for original
>> DVDs/CDs.
>> I have access to 2Mb broadband and have downloaded hundreds of movies and
>> tens of thousands of songs, but I still have an extensive legal
>> collection.
>
> I agree. There is also a difference between watching a movie in a
> theatre and watching it at home. Personally I don't have the money to
> spend on a huge legal collection and I never had any regrets about
> selling my original cd collection.
> I think people with a large house and lots of other possessions will
> still be motivated to buy the original stuff so they can show it off to
> their friends.
> A huge library somehow looks more impressive than a computer with a
> spacious HD.
>
I guess it's nice to have originals when they kick your door in to look for
copyright infringement as well!
>
> If I run a webserver at home, the bandwidth is exactly equal to using a
> p2p application.
What has bandwidth usage got to do with anything?
> A webserver might be more easily targeted since people tend to prefer
> p2p applications and webservers with binary content are relatively
> rare. But if p2p were to be taxed, perhaps many people would switch to
> webservers and they wouldn't be so easy to target.
>
Webservers can be found and closed down, and the penalties are harsh.
Overseas ones are tricky, but many countries are clamping down on this sort
of thing.
>>
>> Email? Well it's hardly an ideal medium for distributing copyrighted
>> content
>> to the extent of P2P. For starters, few mailboxes would handle movies!
>
> You can zip and cut up a movie in 10 mb chunks (or whatever the max
> size of an attachment allowed). A free google account already has 2 gb
> of space. In a few years it is likely to be quite feasible to share
> movies on your email account.
Don't count on it, ISPs are unlikely to allow it. Mailboxes usually have a
limited (small) size anyway.
>For music and books it's already
> practical and possible. You can exchange documentation of your
> collection by email (*), pick a 2 gb selection, dump it on gmail and
> exchange the usernames/passwords so you can each retrieve your
> selection.
>
> (*) a textfile like this: http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/music.txt
Yes, but this is *very* small potatoes.
>
>> Even
>> if it were to become the preferred choice for file exchange, it would be
>> possible to offer a taxed service which permits binary attachments, and a
>> cheaper text-only one.
>>
>> Chat programs? Similar limitations to email.
>>
>> Newsgroups? My ISP has (or at least had) binary and non-binary groups.
>> Pretty easy solution there. My ISP already has a cap on binary NG
>> downloading, which can be raised at a price. It would be possible to tax
>> the
>> binary service if necessary. How would they enforce it? Simply block
>> attachments, limit the filesize to a few kilobytes and if possible block
>> multipart articles.
>
> Ok, in that respect it would be possible to differentiate between
> text-only internet and internet with audio/visual (binaries) content.
> But in the future most people on broadband cable internet will use the
> audio/visual version anyway I reckon. How will you differentiate
> between people sending home videos and people peddling Hollywood movies
> in that case?
>
The same way as they differentiate between such activities on P2P now. Maybe
they will be able to create an intelligent, automated computer to do this,
who knows.
>>
>> > P2p sharing is not synonymous with copyright infringement, though many
>> > people think it is.
>> >
>>
>> Well that's like saying sawn-off shotguns aren't synonymous with armed
>> robbery, but I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of the time
>> they are. Not everyone who installs P2P apps will go on to download
>> illegally, but let's not kid ourselves that this isn't it's main raison
>> d'etre.
>
> That means you would say 'screw the minority of people who try to use
> p2p
> for distributing their own creative output or public domain material'
> just because the majority of p2p users infringe copyrights.
Hang on a minute, you were quite happy to screw every single internet user
for tax to cover illegal filesharing, but find object to the idea that a
tiny chunk of people sharing non copyrighted material on P2P will have to
find an alternative way to distribute their stuff? Methinks you're having a
laugh!
> An artist who just starts out might consider p2p the ideal medium to
> reach a massive audience and a tax on p2p might prevent this option.
OTOH, tax on the internet might mean a lot of people say 'sod this, I'm not
forking out other people's downloads'. With less subscribers, ISPs will have
to push prices up.
..An
> author on the other hand can spread his texts online freely and people
> infringing copyrights by sharing books (as text) on usenet can
> circumvent the p2p tax.
> It seems like you're saying people who come up with original content in
> text form don't deserve any protection of their copyright, while people
> who come up with audiovisual content do, just because that involves
> binaries instead of text.
>
Really? I can't see how I can have been taken to mean that at all.
> I think copyright infringement would have to be taxed in a fair way
> beyond the text-binary dichotomy that somewhat differentiates p2p from
> other internet uses.
>
If someone places their work in text and unprotected on the internet but
wants to prevent unauthorised free copying, they are asking for trouble. If
they wish to charge for viewing then the onus is on them to ensure this
happens. For example they could make it a subscription/members only website.
There's technology which gives authors control over their work by encrypting
it and imposing conditions on the use of the file, such as how many times it
can be copied or read, or how long before it 'times out' and becomes
unreadable. It is likely to become popular with Longhorn, the next Windows
version.
>>
>> >The
>> > distinction between public domain and copyrighted content differs for
>> > various countries and the internet is an international phenomenon.
>> > Where I live, in the Netherlands, for instance, it's legal to download
>> > anything for personal use (movies, books, music, etc..), except
>> > software. It's just illegal to upload copyrighted content.
>>
>> Effectively meaning that sharing is illegal.
>
> Not really.
Sorry, I should have specifically said 'filesharing'.
>> >
>> > There is no sensible way to distinguish between p2p and other internet
>> > uses as far as I can see,
>>
>> 'As far as you can see'. It is fairly trivial for an ISP to isolate those
>> users who are using P2P by analysing their bandwidth usage. ISPs know
>> what
>> the profile of P2P usage looks like, they aren't stupid.
>
> But copyright infringement is not restricted to binaries.
>
We were talking about P2P and the internet.
>>
>> >just like there is no sensible way to
>> > distinguish between copyrighted and public domain content.
>>
>> So what's your estimation of the proportion of copyrighted v public
>> domain
>> material on P2P? My guess- 100:1. I'd be surprised if public domain
>> content
>> makes up a sizeable share of P2P activity.
>
> But why is that?
Because it's a free way to get expensive content! It doesn't matter why, for
the sake of the discussion we were having, which was about how many people
would be unfairly hit by a P2P tax. The point is that they are indeed a tiny
minority.
>In my opinion a major reason for this is that it's
> mostly young
> people using the internet (especially p2p) who are more likely to be
> interested in audiovisual forms of information and music and video are
> so easy to rip.
> If, in the future, a more easy way became available to rip books and
> the average age of computer savvy users increases, we might see an
> increase in the number of cases of copyright infringement concerning
> text-only content, like books.
> Also, since it's likely more and more people will be able to afford
> cameras and other technical equipment to produce their own audiovisual
> content, we can also expect an increase in the number of cases where
> people share their own creations on p2p and
> we can also expect an increase in the number of artists professionally
> embracing p2p and public domain content in a deliberate decision to
> move away from copyrighted material as the preferred status of their
> artistic output.
>
>>
>> >The division
>> > between p2p and other internet uses is not equal to the distinction
>> > between access to or sharing of copyrighted and public domain
>> > information like you seem to suggest.
>> >
>>
>> I don't get this. You propose a system where everyone who uses the
>> internet
>> should pay a tax even though they might just read emails and surf the
>> web,
>> but condemn a model which only hits P2P users, albeit affecting a tiny
>> minority of P2P'ers who may only distribute stuff legally?
>>
>> The logic here escapes me, sorry. How can it be fairer to penalise
>> 'everybody' and thus hit a sizeable chunk of innocent websurfers, rather
>> than attempt to minimise the impact on legal users and charge only P2P
>> users, the vast majority of which are exchanging copyrighted material?
>
> I'm not proposing to penalise everybody.
Well, that's certainly what you said- that an internet tax was a good idea.
>I'm just proposing to redefine
> the concept of 'copyrights' in a fair way and to tax only those
> internet uses that concern copyrighted material.
Well, this is a shift away from your original view.
>This is my ideal
> scenario for a fair internet tax that specifically
> targets copyright infringement. It should however be developed looking
> towards the future and how things are likely to develop and shouldn't
> focus too much on the current situation of a p2p hype. I do agree that
> the p2p phenomenon constitutes the bulk of what most people would
> interpret to constitute copyright infringement, but this is also
> related to how traditional recording companies look at the issue and
> vend their outlook on it through traditional media channels (like
> newspapers and television).
>
>>
>> Anyway, time dictates that I can't really spend as much time on this
>> thread
>> as I have been, especially given the time of year! I'll look out for your
>> reply but I must let someone else take up the discussion with you now if
>> they like.
>
> No problem... feel free to respond whenever you like or chime in again
> at any point in the discussion where you feel compelled to do so.
> The discussion seems very loosely structured anyway.
>
Well, I've spent more time than I should on this again, my family are
wondering what I'm up to! Have a happy New Year.
Dave
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|