[svlug] Re: [nylug-talk] Bunch of Cuckoo's Foiling NapsterUsers??

[Erik Steffl]

Ruben I Safir wrote:
> 
> Yes
> 
> It does distribute.  To say a person is asking for it to distribute is
> irrelevant to this.  All distribution but SPAM is initiated by someone.

  no, they do not distribute anything. napster servers keep information
about what users (that are logged in at any given time) have on their
harddrives (whatever it is, whethere copyrighted or not). the request
for transfer goes from one user's computer to another, napster is not
involved at all.

  you can say that napster _client_ program is involved... (if user uses
napster client)

  it's the net that provides the distribution, not napster.

> Napstar want to make mony by providing distribution of copyrighted
> material........

  it's hard to say how they want to make money (and so far they don't).

	erik

> 
> That IS copyright infingment.
> 
> Your point about other uses is a valid point, but not a great one.  That
> was ONE
> factor which narrowly allowed VCR's.  If the primary use (%98 of it's
> projected use)
> of VCR's was to not only copy, but allow distribution on demand while
> the companies sold advertizing on each copy of each distribution ... it
> would have likely lost in Supreme Court.
> 
> This, however, brings up another issue - how can any device which
> doesn't threaten
> catastophy - be just - BANDED.  I fail to see this different from Book
> Banniiiing/Burning
> 
> "Derek J. Balling" wrote:
> >
> > Neither does Napster.
> >
> > Napster USERS may distribute, just as someone might be using Sony
> > VCRs to make bootleg copies of The Matrix for their friends. The Sony
> > case was very clear that so long as a legal use exists for the
> > product (and in Napster's case, it very much does), then the product
> > is non-infringing.
> >
> > I'm still failing to see why the District Court doesn't recognize
> > this immediately.
> >
> > D
> >
> > At 10:10 AM -0500 8/18/00, Ruben I Safir wrote:
> > >Well
> > >
> > >A VCR doesn't distribute.
> > >
> > >"Derek J. Balling" wrote:
> > >>
> > >>  At 8:19 AM -0500 8/18/00, Ruben I Safir wrote:
> > >>  >More to the point, Napstar is actually in violation of Copyright Law,
> > >>  >even good Copyright Law.
> > >>
> > >>  No more so than Sony was in violation of copyright law for creating
> > >>  the BetaMax VCR (that nasty tool of motion-picture piracy).
> > >>
> > >>  >It's not that folks can share their Music through it, which is legal and
> > >>  >not pirating, but that Napstar is trying to make money through the use
> > >>  >of copyrighted material they do not own.
> > >>
> > >>  Napster, as yet, doesn't seem to have a for-profit business plan that
> > >>  anyone is really privy to. Do you have some inside knowledge? Until
> > >>  then, its nothing more than a WAG.
> > >>
> > >>  >Now if Napstar was completely non-profit, that would be a diferent issue
> > >>  >all together.
> > >>
> > >>  No, actually, it wouldn't. :)
> > >>
> > >>  D
> > >
> > >--
> > >Ruben I Safir
> > >
> > >ruben at sruben.dental.nyu.edu
> > >ruben at wynn.noSppam.com
> > >
> > >Perl Notes:
> > >http://www.wynn.com/jewish/perl_course
> > >
> > >http://www.brooklynonline.com
> > >Manager of Intranet Development NYU College of Dentistry
> > >Resume:  http://www.wynn.com/jewish/resume.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > svlug mailing list
> > svlug at lists.svlug.org
> > http://lists.svlug.org/mailman/listinfo/svlug
> 
> --
> Ruben I Safir
> 
> ruben at sruben.dental.nyu.edu
> ruben at wynn.noSppam.com
> 
> Perl Notes:
> http://www.wynn.com/jewish/perl_course
> 
> http://www.brooklynonline.com
> Manager of Intranet Development NYU College of Dentistry
> Resume:  http://www.wynn.com/jewish/resume.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> svlug mailing list
> svlug at lists.svlug.org
> http://lists.svlug.org/mailman/listinfo/svlug