From: Henry Mitchell <hmitchell_at_fastmail.fm>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 18:31:10 -0800

Fred Maxwell wrote:
> I don't believe that Archos has the resources, willingness, or desire to
> fight the RIAA or MPAA.
That's different from being found responsible for their customer's
misuse of their products.

> You apparently don't remember that they did that in response to court orders
> after the RIAA sued them. Prior to that, you could have searched for "Free
> Lectures" or "The Beatles" and Napster's servers would not have made any
> distinction between the searches. Are you going to argue that Google is
> somehow responsible for software piracy because people search for "warez,"
> "cracks," and "serial numbers"?
That's the complete opposite of my argument! I thought YOU were arguing
that Archos may be held liable for its customers' misuse of products?

> Timeout! Napster's servers had no MP3s on them.
I corrected myself - didn't write what I meant.

> The RIAA did sue the makers of Kazaa:
> http://news.com.com/2100-1023_3-942533.html
This is news to me - I guess I missed that! Has there been any resolution?

> It's easy: If you use Kazaa, you can get a list of all files that a given
> user is making available. There is no way to tell what files any user has
> downloaded or is downloading.
Ah - very true.

Anyway, I thought you were saying that Archos may be held liable because
the RIAA has a history of suing anything that even utters the phrase
MP3. You cited the college kid and Napster as examples. My point was
that just because Archos may be sued doesn't mean they're actually
responsible.

> Nice try, but as a biased observer here, I'd have to give this round to me.
> ;-)
No way, I'm way too badass for you to handle:
http://www.ncaabbs.com/newgraemlins/domesticthug.jpg

Ha-ha. Cheers.
Received on 2003-11-08