|
|
Posted by JP on 03/25/06 21:26
"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
news:48kvtvFkg0tcU1@individual.net...
> 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?
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool
than to open it and remove all doubt."
-- Mark Twain
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|