Posted by Jim on 06/13/06 08:53

In article <kUujg.27186$G97.418551@weber.videotron.net>, NRen2k5 wrote:
>>>>> That is supposing Napster is still around and you still sub to them.
>>>> Quite. If I had to put money on a service still being there five years
>>>> from now, I wouldn't be betting on Napster.
>>> I wouldn't be betting on iTunes. Sooner or later, the law catches up
>>> with criminals like these.
>>
>> That would be the case if they were breaking the law. They're not.
>>
>> And if you're going to counter this with 'yes they are' then please cite
>> the *exact* law they're breaking.
>
> I already told you about anti-competition law.

Vaguely. In a general sort of way. Citing a non-authoritative source.

In other words you've repeatedly failed to cite the actual law that you
claim Apple are breaking. Simply because you don't like the way Apple does
business doesn't make it illegal. Sorry but that's just the way it is.

> It's rapidly becoming clear that you have nothing more to say on the
> matter so you're just going to repeat the same tired garbage and declare
> yourself the winner when I get tired of it and move on.

Are you talking to me or yourself?

Jim
--
Find me at http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk
JediGeeks http://www.jedigeeks.com
"Ah, gentle dames, it gars me greet, To think how monie councels sweet,
How monie lengthen'd, sage advices, The Husband frae the wife despises!"

[Back to original message]