|
|
Posted by anthonyberet on 03/25/06 13:41
JP wrote:
> "anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
> news:48kk9iFk6emjU4@individual.net...
>
>>DubDriver wrote:
>>
>>>Dave wrote:
>>>|| On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:37:41 GMT, Lordy.UK <spam@recycle.bin> wrote:
>>>||
>>>||| Bit of an over-simplification, they pay a small royalty to the
>>>||| Russian version of the RIAA, but that does not mean they have the
>>>||| permission of the actual copyright holders to do what they do.
>>>||
>>>|| Under Russian law they do.
>>>
>>>The Russian Authorities allowing them to sell Beatles songs is not the
>>>same as The Beatles giving permission for them to sell Beatles songs
>>>
>>>|| This is why they can sell Beatles tracks
>>>|| while itunes can't.
>>>
>>>No it isn't why they can sell Beatles songs, it is because they can get
>>>away with it (so far).
>>>
>>
>>If it isn't illegal, then it is legal.
>
>
> Congrats to
> An early entrant for the most idiotic post of the year.
>
>
LOL - What would you say then? - That it is legal and illegal at the
same time, in the same places?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|