CPTACEK1@motorola.com wrote:
>
> I'm not interested in changing any minds. I'm just concerned with
>letting people get away with bogus lies to convince each other that Napster
>is cool. Here's my last word on Napster, in a simple analogy:
>
Your post was well stated except for this analogy, IMO. See below.
> Napster is BAD/WRONG because they are attempting to profit from
>assisting people in stealing music (whether the listener would have bought
>the music or not, if you didn't pay for it, and didn't obtain it by legal
>
Be careful here because you're implying that a non-profit Napster
is not necessarily bad/wrong. I think you intended to imply that but I
wasn't sure.
>the music or not, if you didn't pay for it, and didn't obtain it by legal
>means, you stole it). It is precisely the same thing as a security guard at
>an electronics store getting paid to knowingly turn his back as you steal a
>TV. [...]
>
Downloading an MP3 illegally (via Napster or whatever) is *not*
the same as taking a TV from a store (or a CD even). In one case, you
have taken a physical object and removed it from another person's
possession (stealing the TV). In the other case, you have copied the
product and left the original in the person's possession (download via
Napster). This is really not the same thing (not to say that it is
necessarily right either). Since they are not the same your analogy
fails, you cannot conclude that the security guard and Napster are
equally bad/wrong. Using this analogy will not strengthen your arguments
against Napster -- the rest of your arguments do a better job. There are
certainly moral/ethical questions in today's world when deciding to
download an MP3 for free instead of paying the artist for it.
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 01 2004 - 19:10:52 EST