|
|
Posted by anthonyberet on 10/18/58 11:43
JP wrote:
> "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
>
>
So you can't answer my question then?
Move along - go and find a thread which you understand.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|