Re: Apple Computer changes its name

[Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com>]

In article 
<Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1070112003849.1353B-100000@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca>,
 "Simon D. Williams" <bb065@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Jeff Blakeney wrote:
> 
> >   To: bieling
> > On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:22:35 -0800, "bieling" <bieling@terra.es>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > >Although I see your point, and I agree that some "adjustments" may be
> > >needed in this market's model, I can't stand by the side of the ones
> > >that find it fair to enjoy all the music they like for 0$ a year.
> > >Sorry, that's, more like, stealing.
> > 
> > I'm missing part of this thread but I just had to reply to this part.
> > I enjoy all kinds of music for "0$ a year" just by listening to the
> > radio and that's not stealing.  :-)
> 
> Only because the "cost" of the music is underwritten by advertisers. If
> you were listening to "pirate" radio then you would be stealing (in a
> round-about way).
> 
> Is it legal to record radio programs? I remember back in the late '70s /
> early '80s having a whole lot of mixed tapes that my friends had recorded
> off the radio. I'm sure that would be considered a terrorist act in this
> day and age ;-)

It is (legal, I mean), no matter what the RIAA thinks. They've made it 
quite clear that as far as they're concerned, any given license to 
experience recorded content covers the pairing of content and medium. As 
such, the fact that you have Jethro Tull's "This Was" on CD, LP, 8-track 
and DAT doesn't mean you have the right to listen to it from an analog 
tape you've made by recording one of those other sources (in their 
world). So far, the courts have not agreed with them.

-- 
The best intentions in the world don't make a flawed argument magically valid.