Ric wrote:
> "Bill" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:4FEQa.1783$Mc.159974@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> =Bob= wrote:
>>> "I. B. Pickin" <i__b_pickin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:88494a63.0307141056.48503d4c@posting.google.com...
>>>> Methinks y'all are missing the point here, regarding why a boycott
>>>> should be considered a valid move:
>>>>
>>> [deletions]
>>>
>>>> Until and unless they do, not only are *THEY* doomed, but so is the
>>>> industry they're so self-righteously trying to "protect" -- and it'll
>>>> be at least as much their fault as it is anyone else's.
>>>
>>> The industry will change, maybe even only after they take a
>>> big hit in the bank.
>>
>> Do you think we'll ever live to see that day? Not with the masses
continuing
>> to buy the CDs, as they apparently are (still) doing. (Unless you've heard
>> different...)
>>
>>
>
> Well, according to the RIAA (I'm paraphrasing, of course..):
>
> 1. Everyone's file sharing
> 2. File sharers don't buy CDs
> 3. People not buying CDs are crippling the music industry.
> 4. The music industry is being crippled.
> QED
>
> So really, there's no need for a boycott anyway. All anyone has to do is
> continue doing what they're doing and the RIAA won't be able to afford to
> sue anyone in a couple of years.
>
> Or is it possible the RIAA's mistaken?
>
> ...Nah!
>
> Ric
You mean as long as they don't get away with doing what they did to Napster and
Aimster - to Kazaa and WinMX. Recall that they seemed to be pretty
successful there, (putting them out of business), and legal fees (evidently)
weren't such a big issue for them at the time.
Don't they have Kazaa involved in some sort of litigation right now? Or just
the ISPs?
|
Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
|