Re: Napster destroys Western Civilization

On Mon, 15 May 2000, Marty Hayes <9ball[_at_]hostsite.net> wrote:
>
> The rewrite potential may very well be possible, but that's not where
> we are right now. Right now, in current form, it is expressly a tool
> made to make unauthorized reproductions of digital music files.

Well, it's a tool for making reproductions of digital music files, anyway. As has been mentioned, that includes authorized reproductions of music files.

> What it could be is irrevelant until such a possibility becomes
> reality. Until such time as the application has a primary function
> of noninfringing use, I still maintain my position.

That's fine for your position, but you should be aware that your position is not that of the courts, and isn't particularly helpful in determining whether Napster ought to be found liable. The actual test for contributory infringement is whether the item has substantial non-infringing uses, which is a significantly lower threshhold than the one you propose.

I think we're seeing the RIAA (which represents record companies, not recording artists) so upset because the emerging MP3 standard will allow recording artists to communicate their art directly to their public, without going through the RIAA's members. It is this substantial non-infringing use that has the RIAA worried.

-- 
Terry Carroll         |   "The United States is located in
Santa Clara, CA       |   the District of Columbia."
carroll[_at_]tjc.com       |
Modell delendus est   |       Uniform Commercial Code s. 9-307(h)