rparadox Posted February 13 Report Share Posted February 13 Actually, when Sony's BetaMax (the the predecessor(sp?) to VHS) first came out, the movie industry attempted to sue Sony (they lost). Napster's original defence was based on the BetaMax case. There has been a history of big companies suing anything they view as a threat to their profits. And those big companies have big $$$ to throw around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rparadox Posted February 13 Author Report Share Posted February 13 Actually, when Sony's BetaMax (the the predecessor(sp?) to VHS) first came out, the movie industry attempted to sue Sony (they lost). Napster's original defence was based on the BetaMax case. There has been a history of big companies suing anything they view as a threat to their profits. And those big companies have big $$$ to throw around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msoprano Posted February 13 Report Share Posted February 13 it dont make a difference because the court finally ruled against them. sometimes justice isnt fair------------------TWILO'S WACK !!!! Sorry guys it is "dont be affraid to walk out on anything in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat coming from around the corner" Robert DeniroAIM:msoprano13Email:msoprano13@yahoo.com "IM GONNA MAKE YOU AN OFFER YOU CANT REFUSE" MSOPRANO13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back2basics- Posted February 14 Report Share Posted February 14 Just some thoughts on the Napster ruling that came up last night in a discussion. Firstly isn't it like.. let's say a companay who make baseball bats being sued for missuse of it's product? There are legal uses for Napster (if you have bought a record you are entitled to download it as you have a licence). So if somebody hits me in a car after they were drunk can i now go and sue Ford.. nah i don't think so.Napster could move it's servers outside the US. The ruling has been in America, but the rest of the world suffers. Napster could move to England and let the records companies persue them there. Do you think they will? Nah they have dollar signes in there eyes.If the record companies take Napster away, then should they give us a method of listening to music we have bought digitaly? It can be argued that it has NEVER been proved that the people who were banned from napster didn't own the records they downloaded.. that was NEVER a part of the trial. Ok so we know it's not the case, but shouldn't this have been establihed for a fair trial?------------------I want to go out blazing..not fade away.Trust in the currency of relationships, it's hard to earn but easy to loose - back2basics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back2basics- Posted February 14 Report Share Posted February 14 BTW, i know the ruling is irrelevent because of the Point to Point sharing software. But it does seem that the record companies have bent the rules a little to me. Can anybody throw some light? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReginaP Posted February 14 Report Share Posted February 14 *yawn* g'mornin' ------------------=) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quanto_magnus Posted February 14 Report Share Posted February 14 Originally posted by back2basics-:BTW, i know the ruling is irrelevent because of the Point to Point sharing software. But it does seem that the record companies have bent the rules a little to me. Can anybody throw some light?I don't know about the Peer to Peer sharing software, leaves a lot of room for hacking your personal system... I'm in total agreement with you otherwise, though I can't shed any light into the legality thing... ------------------ Hughemail: ibhugh@yahoo.comaolim: hugesk8r Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rparadox Posted February 14 Author Report Share Posted February 14 The record companies have based their case on the argument that Napster was created specifically for the purpose of trading copywritten material. In reality, Napster does not store any pirated music on its servers, and thus isn’t directly breaking any laws. The RIAA has used the argument that Napster “facilitates” piracy, kind of like a person who steers someone to a drug dealer. Of course, anyone with more than a few brain cells can see that Napster shouldn’t be shut down, but we are dealing with the U.S. government here, where brain cells few and actions are hasty.Napter, by the way, signed a $50 million deal with BMG, so it’ll continue to be around, probably a subscribe or pay-per-download service featuring BMG songs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back2basics- Posted February 14 Report Share Posted February 14 Originally posted by ReginaP:*yawn* g'mornin' Morning, just got up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back2basics- Posted February 14 Report Share Posted February 14 Yeh but facilitation doesn't pre-empt abuse.Look at guns, they can be use for illigal activities. You carn't stop people making guns on that basis. So if that is the reason why carn't every person who has had a member of their family killed sue the gun companies? It's is exactly the same principal.Also tape recorders and CD burners can be used to illegaly copy software and music. But you don't see anybody going after the big electronic companies.Something is wrong with this ruling using that logic. But there must be something else..------------------I want to go out blazing..not fade away.Trust in the currency of relationships, it's hard to earn but easy to loose - back2basics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReginaP Posted February 14 Report Share Posted February 14 Originally posted by back2basics-: Morning, just got up?No no no, just overcome by the urge to yawn ------------------=) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nessalove Posted February 14 Report Share Posted February 14 The issue with napster is infringement, and to some extent distribution is infringement. Although it's not technically napster that's doing the distributing, but rather only providing the forum for it, it would be impossible to prosectute all the individual distributers ie. us. I absolutely don't agree with what's happening with the case. In the situation of digital music in general, there's really a need for a paradigm shift in the way record companies look to produce their music. There has to be a better way to combine the record world with the digital world, because essentially even with the new napster fee, the mass trading is still going on, so it's not really creating a resolution to the problem, but putting it off. I can download over 100 songs in a day if I really try, and the measely 15 bucks they're making me pay could never cover the amount of royalties the artists would get if I was buying the music. Besides that there has really been no proof that Napster has decreased record spending. In fact I tend to believe the opposite because it really does create more exposure for artists, and gets their music out there. If you're really curious about some of the legalities surrounding the trial, I know you can watch excerpts from some of the preliminary trials on cnn.com, and it'll give you a better idea of how some of the decisions have been made. There have been comparisons of Napster to the original Sony Beta, and another issue was concerning non copyrighted material, and that napster should be allowed to stay free because of its capability to trade non-copyrighted material. But anyway, if you have more questions, I did a research project on the earlier napster case, so feel free to PM me. Hope I helped a little. - Ness - [This message has been edited by nessalove (edited 02-13-2001).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.