Mark Cuban to finance Grokster defense

TalkBack 3 of 20:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

you sure you replied to the right message?

'Cause your responce had nothing to do with my point. My point was about how success in our legal system has way too much to do with how much money you throw at the problem and not enough to do with the merits of the case; and that applies to the legal system as a whole, not just IP cases.

As far as your points go...
p2p networks are legal for the same reason VCR's are legal. Either you think that VCR's should be illegal or you have no problem with the p2p networks themselves.
Going after the p2p's is similar to going after Ford because someone used a F-150 to transport drugs across the border. The p2p network is just a veichle to transport the material; as long as it has non-infringing uses(back to the beta-max case) it is legal. If users are doing something illegal, then it is the user breaking the law and the user that should be punished. Of course the RIAA, doesnt much care about anything other than their greed and will take down anything seen as a threat, legal or not. Of course if it happens to be legal the RIAA will seek to change that, which it has successfully done on several occasions. Heck, if there was a centralized owner of the internet I'm sure the RIAA would have sued him too.
You're right, denial doesnt change law(with the exception of civil disobediance), but pro-active judges and teams of overpaid lawyers do. And of course, if that doesnt work, just go to congress and pay them to write a brand new one for you.
Ever heard of the home audio recording act of 1992? Basically p2p, even centralized napster should have been legal under it, but the judges "interpreted" (ie changed, ignored, re-wrote, etc) the law to essencially void it.
Also, there is no theft going on, at least not in the traditional sence of someone taking something from someone else. One user is being given something from a second, the problem is that the second user never had rights to duplicate the material. copyright enfringement, yes, theft, no. If you dont have a point that can stand on its own without sensationalizing and exagerating it, then dont waste your time; if your point can stand on its own, then let it. Also, you're not a criminal until you're convicted; you know, innocent until proven guilty and all that good stuff. (well, except for the DMCA) Again, with the sensationalism thing.
I do hope you seek out other sources of information then the media outlets controled by the recording companies. Also, logic is a wonderful tool for cutting through BS, try applying it to the stories from the recording industry controled media outlets and see whats left? Or for more fun try applying it to your post and see whats left.

Posted by: zijiang   Posted on: 03/27/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now
• Dell Helps Medical University of South Carolina Bring the Intelligent Classroom to Life Dell Established in 1824, Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) is one of ... Download Now
• The True Costs of Virtual Server Solutions VMware In an economic environment that is repeatedly heralding the message "do ... Download Now