Zero Powers wrote:
> As you have correctly surmised, I am not a dolt. Therefore I would never
> argue (and have never argued) that Napstering copyrighted music is a good
> thing for those who own the copyrights. So sure, from the *point of view
> the artist/record company* Napster is a "bad" thing. No argument there.
> But I try to look at this question from the broadest possible view. Not
> merely from the standpoint of the copyright holders, nor merely from the
> standpoint of the pirates. But from the view of trying to determine the
> absolute or "greater good."
Ah, you are very slippery my friend... yes, very slippery indeed. :)
A few extremely rhetorical questions:
If, however, the copyright laws cause more harm (in
> diminished free flow of data)
The 'harm' of college kids not getting their 'Blink 182' for free??
than their supposed good (in stuffing the
> pocketbooks of content providers),
The 'supposed' good of rewarding people who fulfill a demand?
I'm not saying anything intelligent in the post at all, so please feel free
to ignore it.
Hmm, upon reflection, I suppose I should have put that statement at the top
of this reply so you wouldn't have to read the message to realize that you
don't need to read the message.
Although, maybe you're one of those skimmer types, who skips to the end, and
then reads backwards.
Oh, damn, then I've screwed -that- up, because my warning is no longer at
I -warned- you that there wasn't anything intelligent being said in this
Nope, still nothing, you -really- should do yourself a favor and stop
Think of all that other genuinely -important- email piling up in your inbox
at this very moment. Precious moments of your life are being consumed by
this inane banter. You could be taking a walk, trying to pick up chicks or
practicing moving things with your mind.
Please have a nice day.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:37 MDT