--- sopran@a... wrote:
(...) There are many, many instances in which our
basic rights are being eroded--this is just one (...)
Dear Judy and co vocalisters,
the question is, who's rights are being eroded here.
The necessity of this law is born out of the fact that
copy rights of recording companies and artists have
been violated by Napster, mp3.com and others. The
cases that have been taken to court, have made that
clear.
The so called 'freedom' mp3.com is saying to defend,
is the freedom to listen via Internet to cd's you
*say* you bought. Who the hell would do that? If you
own a cd and want to listen to it while sitting in
front of a computer, you put it in your cd-rom drive:
the quality is much better and it is easier!
What 99,99 % of the people do is, downloading tracks
of cd's they don't own, listen to them and mostly even
burn cd's from them. I've seen hundreds of people
doing that, I've never heard of anybody doing the
things mp3 etc. says they do.
Internet of course offers some interesting
possibilities: we have some people on the list that
sell cd's they produced themselves by using mp3.com
and I don't have anything against that. I even bought
some cd's (from Hyperion and other companies) after
having listened to a track first on Internet.
But I am still convinced, that violating copyrights of
performing artists and the recording industry, is not
in the interest of singers, other musicians and music
lovers.
I can only welcome a law that prevents that. I am sure
- I have been married to a lawyer long enough to judge
- there will never be a law that prohibits listening
to music via Internet, from artists and recording
companies that * want you * to listen to them.
People that tell you something else, are either
panicking, paranoia or making propaganda. Choose for
yourself!
Best greetings,
Dre
__________________________________________________
|
|  |
