Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 07:16:10AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net> wrote:
> > > This "absolute protection" did not seem to protect Napster, nor did
> > > the home recording act.
> >
> > Despite their claims to the contrary, Napster's *primary function* was to
> > facilitate the illegal distribution of copyrighted materials. That is
> > clearly not the case with Debian.
>
> Ok, here's what I'm thinking:
>
> First off...
[huge diatribe snipped]
I already told you I'm not getting into this with you. You seem to like to
change the subject when anyone makes a point you don't want to address.
You're also still trying to make all of the same points you were making the
last time I posted, which means you're not really listening to anyone who's
trying to explain things to you.
> Napster, by the way, was enabling people to make recordings
> of music at home. There was law on the books (the home audio
> recording act) which seemed to say that these activities were
> perfectly legal. Court ruled that they were not.
No matter what the court ruled about Napster's CD ripping/copying ability,
that's not what they originally got in trouble for. They got in trouble for
making it easy for people to trade MP3's, by maintaining a repository of
illegal music download locations.
Debian isn't Napster. It's not even close. Stop comparing Debian to
Napster.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <adam@debian.org> <adam@flounder.net>
Reply to: