Posted by RichardK on 06/13/06 10:22

NRen2k5 wrote:
> RichardK wrote:
>
>> NRen2k5 wrote:
>>
>>> Jim wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <fVsjg.21230$U84.449908@wagner.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.
>>
>>
>> No you didn't. You haven't actually presented anything which
>> demonstrates Apple are breaking any laws at all.
>
>
> You'd claim water wasn't wet while you're drowning...

No, I have evidence that it is wet. This is the fundamental difference.

Richard

--
RichardK - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/ - retro, music, cars.
2006 Mazda RX8, 1992 Sera Phase III -= Do Not Tempt With New Cars =-
"If the thought of something makes me giggle for more than 15 seconds I
am to assume I am not allowed to do it". * 64 is 128 for email *

[Back to original message]