|
[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
[NMLUG] Re: legal music downloads?
It appears that many of you fail to realize that copyright is designed to
protect the consumer. Not provide a guarantee for profits of a company,
thats not to say that a company should not be profitable.
The purpose of a copyright is so that a consumer is provided with a
certain guarantee that he/she is buying a genuine product. A copyright is
not supposed to protect a company's monopoly on an industry.
Meaning microsift, macromedia, apple should be not be guaranteed that
their products will be returned a profit. The meaning of competition in a
free market arena is a business is given an opportunity to compete without
being taxed or abused excessively by the environment it is competing in.
If I purchase a music CD and I want to share it with someone across the
internet for free I am within my legal limit to do so.
That was the case up until the DMCA reared its disgusting nasty head.
There was a CEO or something of a pharm company a few months ago, I
believe, who said something to the effect that without patending our
country will essentialy fail in a similar fashion like the former ussr.
Then there is that twit mcbride who says GNU/Linux is like communism.
This is a clear reflection of the level of ignorance in some people who
have appointed themselves heads or upper levels of business and compay's.
The ussr didnt fail due to lack of profit, their beaurcracy had all the
profit while the people worked their butts off and got nothing in return.
The ussr failed miserably because of the level of corruption and people
who appointed themselves cardinals of information.
In other words you had people in certain levels of power who managed,
censored and generally kept the flow of information at a level that suited
these individuals. The term 'redtape' may come to mind for some of you,
but you would be wrong. Redtape implies that there is atleast some kind
of paper work that has to be filled out. In fact I think there isnt
enough redtape in our government right now. I believe that is why
LANL is suffering from the breaches of security it has. Too many
'independent contractors' running around pretending they know what they
are doing. But their impact on national security is given little
consideration.
No, the thing about the former ussr (and what is now russia) is that
it suffered from the truest level of corruption. Utter corruption, to
such an extent that without it nothing ever got done.
Information flowed only when it suited someone.
Microsoft and macromedia are not far off. They want access to your
computer to watch everything you do. They love the DMCA because it
lets them into your house with the blessing of the federal government.
Explain to me how this is not unconstitutional?
Steve M
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Steve Browne wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 22:52:43 -0000, you wrote:
>
> >What they say about paying the copyright holder is true, at least if you're in
> >Russia. The RIAA has a special agreement with Russia so that Russians can
> >obtain US music with a different pricing scheme. However, that agreement
> >states that it's for people living in _Russia_, specifically, so that's why it
> >may be legal for them but not for us. I don't know.
> >
> >As far as paying them, I went ahead and did it. I gave them $10 via credit
> >card but since I was a little nervous doing so, I used one of those "one-time
> >use" numbers. The transaction went smooth and I've had no problems. I'm no
> >longer apprehensive about giving them more money. But that may be a while,
> >considering $10 goes a LONG way.
> >
> >Leila
>
> "One time use" number? How does that work? You mean on a VISA account?
> Thanks,
> Steve
> Stephen B. Browne
> sbrowne@ix.netcom.com
> "Ubi bene, ibi patria."
> _______________________________________________
> NMLUG mailing list
> NMLUG@nmlug.org
> http://www.nmlug.org/mailman/listinfo/nmlug
>
|
|
