Music Exec: ISPs Must Pay Up for Music-Swapping

Reuters ^ | January 18, 2003 | Bernhard Warner

[Leroy S. Mort]

The issue is downloading music vs. posting articles on FR. What makes one sinister and the other less so? In a word, motivation.

Good thing, you're retreating because that statement is a target-rich environment. LOL !

The offender is essentially receiving stolen property and receives a monetary benefit from his action.

What monetary benefit? This assumes the perp would have run down to BestBuy and plonked down 18 bucks for a CD if he hadn't found the Collected Works of Boxcar Willie available online.

What is the motive of someone who posts an article to FR? To share contemporary news of a common interest with others of a like mind. No monetary benefit.

Then explain why the TIMES/POST got their shorts in a twist when FR in essence, bypassed their advertising. If you read the case, they maintain loss of revenue.

Justifying actions such as this based on "motivation" is the same slippery slope used by the music downloaders. To SOMEONE in the world..be it you as a member of the music industry or to the management of the LA TIMES/WASH POST, BOTH are "theft". Now if you want to characterize yourself as "a minor and excuseable thief" because , in your mind, your motives are pure, that's fine. Supposing I wanted to download music MP3's to give to the "poor and disadvantaged" who couldn't afford to purchase the music otherwise. Would that make my "motivation" and actions pure and acceptable in the eyes of you and the RIAA? No I don't think so.

Next time you get up on that music industry soapbox of yours, check your own glass window before throwing stones.

Thanks for playing....

[tdadams]

What monetary benefit? This assumes the perp would have run down to BestBuy and plonked down 18 bucks for a CD

Is this your idea of a logical retort? Please. That's weak even by your low standards. If I buy a 'hot' stereo from a bad part of town, it's only a crime if I would have otherwise gone and bought it at retail? Talk about a slippery slope. Even if I had no intention of buying it at retail, I've committed a crime by receiving the stolen property.

Again, assuming you're just too dumb to put two and two together instead of just being a contrarian, motivation is the difference. And that's not a target rich assertion as you put it, it's a very valid and deciding factor.

When someone downloads a song, their motivation is to receive something that they would otherwise have to pay for to receive. The violator has ill-gotten gains. When someone posts, or reads, a news article online, the same cannot be said. One can read the news whether it's posted on CNN.com or on Free Republic. For the violator, there is no gain either way.

I think this last post of yours only affirms what I've been saying. You're deliberately ignoring differences which I've clearly explained to you. Point by point, I've refuted you, but you're determined to obfuscate. Entertain yourself. And keep posting if you wish, you only demonstrate for others how dubious your logic is.

[Leroy S. Mort]

For the violator, there is no gain either way.

Is there a loss by the owner? Of course there is.

motivation is the difference. And that's not a target rich assertion as you put it, it's a very valid and deciding factor.

Try that defense in court. It doesn't fly. Ask Jim.

One can read the news whether it's posted on CNN.com or on Free Republic.

Its the AD revenue that they lose (supposedly). That was the whole basis of the FR case.

I think this last post of yours only affirms what I've been saying. You're deliberately ignoring differences which I've clearly explained to you. Point by point, I've refuted you, but you're determined to obfuscate.

Pot and Kettle....

And keep posting if you wish, you only demonstrate for others how dubious your logic is.

Ditto, my friend.....