|
|
Posted by Loco Jones on 09/26/03 11:26
"Ted 'the only good Kennedy is a dead' Kennedy" <ausstu@isamoron.com>
wrote in message news:h9d6i1pd43iatpc23pv7tcq8rva4p19e2q@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:17:12 -0400, "Loco Jones" was understood to
> have stated the following:
> >"Ted Kennedy Murdered His Pregnant Mistress" wrote...
> >> Joel wrote...
> >> >> "audiohead" wrote:
> >> >> Kazaa is nothing less than a site for bloodsucking leeches.
> >> >
> >> > And you think being a bottom-feeding con artist is morally superior?
> >>
> >> Definitely morally superior to sharers.
> >>
> >> >> It has nothing to do with sharing music and everything to do
> >> >> with STEALING it.
> >> >
> >> > Of course, you prefer selling information that anyone can get for
> >> > free, because that's somehow ethical, in your perverted mind.
> >>
> >> Still using your perversions to justify your thefts?
> >
> >"Fire up the Wayback Machine, Sherman... and set the dial for 2002."
> >
> >When Is Stealing Not Stealing?
> > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,652236,00.asp
>
> Whether it's 2005 or 1905, the argument is still the same.
My point being, this "argument" has been going on for *years*, and it still
hasn't been satisfactorily resolved - and certainly not by the Courts to
date. Copyright infringement is a civil matter, theft is a criminal matter,
and it's the RIAA/MPAA cartels confusing the two while trying to bully the
judicial system into accepting their point of view.
Anyone can claim that listening to music without paying to do so is guilty
of "stealing", they can even claim some moral high ground in defending
their views, but that doesn't neccessarily mean they are right and anyone
in disagreement is wrong.
I can claim that it's morally wrong for the RIAA to create one-sided
contracts which "steal" from the creators of artistic property, or force
them to sign away their rights in near-perpetuity, but I doubt they would
see it that way. To them, it's simply a matter of how they have always
conducted business and how dare anyone question the status quo.
The problem is... people *are* questioning an industry that has been found
guilty (by the Courts) of price-fixing and payola for radio airplay (yet
again in 2005!), and while copyright infringement for profit certainly
needs to be addressed, downloading music merely to listen to is hardly the
felony the **AA member corporations would have the news media and the
public believe.
There's an old saying... "there are two sides to every argument, and the
truth usually falls somewhere in the middle." I would say that definitely
applies to this particular issue. Did you even read the article, or the
reader comments, from the url I provided?
- Loco -
(Now Playing: Right Or Wrong - Stealers Wheel)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|