Re: Don't bash Microsoft (was A89: Sim City 68k)
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Don't bash Microsoft (was A89: Sim City 68k)
Hmm... you know, that was a lot of ranting, but you
forgot to support your opinions. Here, I'll support mine.
If you've ever used a college residential network, you
know of a certain file transfer protocol called NFS.
You might know it as "Network Neighborhood" or
"Microsoft Networking". It predates Napster by
years, and still fulfills Napster's role on college
campuses today (often even more popularly than
Napster, still). It's got all the features. You just
click on the files you want to share (even easier
than Napster). You can search for computers or
files just as easily as on Napster. The only
drawback is it's not scalable, and only works on
local area networks. So it's confined to your college.
It is an integral part of so many network functions,
from corporate to web to academic that there is no
way itcould ever be outlawed, but it is almost identical
in function to Napster, save that it's for IPX and
therefore won't function on wide-area networks or the
Internet. It's primary purpose (at least on college
camupses) is exactly the same as Napster's. This
is one protocol. There are many more examples
like this I can give. It takes a real idiot to think that
you can outlaw user-to-user file-sharing programs,
regardless of the intentions of the author.
It is the end-user who breaks the law by using
Napster to infringe on a copyright, not Napster.
It's not the crowbar manufacturer's fault if it's used
to break a door. And Napster's intentions are not
admissible (not to mention not provable). As long
as they weren't encouraging others to commit a
crime, they can snicker behind their desks all they
want. If you go out jaywalking, even if you intend to
break the law, it's not illegal if you accidentally
choose to jaywalk on an intersection where
jaywalking is permitted. Only a partially applicable
analogy, Napster didn't break the letter of any law,
so, regardless of their intentions, they are not guilty
of breaking any law.
And those who say Napster is intentionally ignoring
crimes committed on their network, IRC is used
time and time again for illegal file-sharing. Shall
we outlaw it, since the server admins aren't doing
anything about it? AOL is used to transfer illegal
spam all the time, and they do basically nothing
either, except in flagarant cases where they think
they can get some money in a law suit. Policing
all these networks is just too darned expensive
for any of these networks to handle. Lucky for us,
the DMCA has already cleared up the issue.
You're not responsible for information transmitted
over your network unless you are notified of it, at
which time you are expected to take reasonable
action to prevent it. And wow, sure enough,
Metallica tested this and Napster followed through!
Napster shocked everyone when they proved that
they had considered this hurdle from the very start,
and did a VERY thorough job of blocking the users.
Unquestionably more than reasonable action in
fact. There was nothing more they could have done
to prevent violaters from using their networks. The
action was quick and decisive.
And that's the bottom line. You must do what
Metallica did. It's YOUR job to protect your
copyrights and you do that by going after THOSE
WHO ARE VIOLATING THEM. And you can
expect complete cooperation from corporate
services like Napster. Nothing more, nothing less.
In a message dated 10/1/00 6:16:57 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
antgage@apk.net writes:
> Now your using stupidity of the press to say 'If napster loses, so will
> ftp/http'.
>
> Some stupid people may consider napster to be on the same line as ftp, but
> its dumb asses like Ulrich that make assinine comments like that.
>
> As much as i love napster, you can't live on the defense 'if I go down I'll
> take the internet with me.' Napsters only defense is that 'they werent
> notified of the pirating'. Bullshit. It could take me much less time to
come
> up with a much better argument.
Follow-Ups: