Replies

This is really getting tiring. I suspect your questions are rhetorical and disingenuous, so I'm reluctant to keep entertaining you. However, I'll take the chance that maybe you really don't get it.

The issue is downloading music vs. posting articles on FR. What makes one sinister and the other less so? In a word, motivation.

What is the motive of someone who downloads music from the internet? To circumvent buying that same song at retail and having to pay for it. The offender is essentially receiving stolen property and receives a monetary benefit from his action.

What is the motive of someone who posts an article to FR? To share contemporary news of a common interest with others of a like mind. No monetary benefit.

There is a difference. But instead of seeing and acknowledging that, you're only trying to make your point and completely ignoring the differences that I've pointed out.

Frankly, I'm tired of running in circles with you on this issue, so your future posts to me will be ignored. I've answered you already.

The issue is downloading music vs. posting articles on FR. What makes one sinister and the other less so? In a word, motivation.

Good thing, you're retreating because that statement is a target-rich environment. LOL !

The offender is essentially receiving stolen property and receives a monetary benefit from his action.

What monetary benefit? This assumes the perp would have run down to BestBuy and plonked down 18 bucks for a CD if he hadn't found the Collected Works of Boxcar Willie available online.

What is the motive of someone who posts an article to FR? To share contemporary news of a common interest with others of a like mind. No monetary benefit.

Then explain why the TIMES/POST got their shorts in a twist when FR in essence, bypassed their advertising. If you read the case, they maintain loss of revenue.

Justifying actions such as this based on "motivation" is the same slippery slope used by the music downloaders. To SOMEONE in the world..be it you as a member of the music industry or to the management of the LA TIMES/WASH POST, BOTH are "theft". Now if you want to characterize yourself as "a minor and excuseable thief" because , in your mind, your motives are pure, that's fine. Supposing I wanted to download music MP3's to give to the "poor and disadvantaged" who couldn't afford to purchase the music otherwise. Would that make my "motivation" and actions pure and acceptable in the eyes of you and the RIAA? No I don't think so.

Next time you get up on that music industry soapbox of yours, check your own glass window before throwing stones.

Thanks for playing....