Posted by anthonyberet on 01/19/86 11:43

Rob Morley wrote:
> In article <48kvtvFkg0tcU1@individual.net>
> anthonyberet <nospam@me.invalid> wrote:
>
>>JP wrote:
>>
>>>"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:48kk9iFk6emjU4@individual.net...
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>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?
>>
>
> But it's two different places - while it may be 'legal' to host this
> site in Russia, it's not legal to import the material into the UK.

The jurisdictions do not overlap - they are separate.
In Russia, this site is either illegal, or legal, and the consensus
seems to be that it is legal.
In the USA, downloading from the site is either illegal, or legal, and
the consensus seems to be that it is legal.
In the UK,downloading from the site is either illegal, or legal, but
there is no consensus about which as far as I can see.

It cannot simultaneously be both legal and illegal in any one
jurisdiction. Nor can it simultaneously be both illegal and legal in
more than one jurisidiction, as the uploading only takes place in one
jurisdiction, and the download also only takes place in one jurisdiction.

It seems to me, that if the site is -by proxy- affiliated with the RIAA,
CRIAA and BPI, and all the rest of the copywrong enforcers, then the
cheapness is merely a consequence of global free trade.
Global free trade seems to suit large companies when they source cheap
products, expertise and labour themselves, so why cry foul when others
do the same?
Indeed, they are not crying foul.

[Back to original message]