Bye bye Napster
Thursday, September 5, 2002 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
So Napster appears to be about to move from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 liquidation.
During the ealry days of our news group, Napster was a pretty hot topic as people debated their business model, business ethics, and the record industry ethics.
I'm on fan of the record industry but I think many of us who are in the business of CREATING intellectual property can breath a sigh of relief to see that Napster died. Part of the reason for that (a big reason) was the very idea that people could get rich by allowing others to pilfer the work of others.
Early Object Desktop users may recall the discussion of Object Recommendation, which preceded Napster by a year. This component allowed users to select folders on their hard drive as well as links on the net" to "recommend" to others. These files were then available as part of a global file database. Why did we kill it? Because we couldn't figure out how to prevent people from using it to pirate software and music. An ethical dilema that Shawn Fanning apparently did not worry about when he whipped up Napster in MFC a year later and went on to win various "technology of the year awards" to the dismay of software develoeprs everywhere who had been discussing peer file networks for years but were prevented from creating open ones due to moral/ethics issues involved.
So while there is definitely a bit of a sour grapes feeling among some of us that someone could gain international fame as a "brilliant" software developer simply by having no moral qualms over IP theft, at least in the end there seems to be justice - that you can't necessarily make a long term business out of creating things designed mainly so that others to steal the work of others easily.
(flame away)
During the ealry days of our news group, Napster was a pretty hot topic as people debated their business model, business ethics, and the record industry ethics.
I'm on fan of the record industry but I think many of us who are in the business of CREATING intellectual property can breath a sigh of relief to see that Napster died. Part of the reason for that (a big reason) was the very idea that people could get rich by allowing others to pilfer the work of others.
Early Object Desktop users may recall the discussion of Object Recommendation, which preceded Napster by a year. This component allowed users to select folders on their hard drive as well as links on the net" to "recommend" to others. These files were then available as part of a global file database. Why did we kill it? Because we couldn't figure out how to prevent people from using it to pirate software and music. An ethical dilema that Shawn Fanning apparently did not worry about when he whipped up Napster in MFC a year later and went on to win various "technology of the year awards" to the dismay of software develoeprs everywhere who had been discussing peer file networks for years but were prevented from creating open ones due to moral/ethics issues involved.
So while there is definitely a bit of a sour grapes feeling among some of us that someone could gain international fame as a "brilliant" software developer simply by having no moral qualms over IP theft, at least in the end there seems to be justice - that you can't necessarily make a long term business out of creating things designed mainly so that others to steal the work of others easily.
(flame away)
 |
|
Page 1 of 3 | |
|
|---|
T-Man
Reply #2 Thursday, September 5, 2002 2:42 PM
Reply #2 Thursday, September 5, 2002 2:42 PM
"we exchanged tapes ofcourse to not go broke on buying records and nobody saw this as theft." - Lecrayon
I disagree there. Back when I was a teenager and younger (80's) i very well understood that copying tapes that you did not buy was not legal. Though I did copy an occasional album from a friend I did understand that it really was not right. And I think most people understood that as well but it was more widely accepted.
I think part of the reason it was more accepted because it was more causual than it is today. Today its almost an every day type of thing. So with the more illegal copying that is going on the more attention its starting to bring. Its also much easier and faster to copy a CD than it was to make a tape back then.
Will this problem ever be resolved? Probably not.
I disagree there. Back when I was a teenager and younger (80's) i very well understood that copying tapes that you did not buy was not legal. Though I did copy an occasional album from a friend I did understand that it really was not right. And I think most people understood that as well but it was more widely accepted.
I think part of the reason it was more accepted because it was more causual than it is today. Today its almost an every day type of thing. So with the more illegal copying that is going on the more attention its starting to bring. Its also much easier and faster to copy a CD than it was to make a tape back then.
Will this problem ever be resolved? Probably not.
Lecrayon
Reply #3 Thursday, September 5, 2002 3:06 PM
Reply #3 Thursday, September 5, 2002 3:06 PM
Oh we knew it wasnt legal by law, we just didnt see it as theft. It wasnt a stealing of music, put it on an album to produce and redistibute on a large scale...It was to lower costs.....The thing is that prices stay high, not because of common guys like you and me copy some stuff, it is because organized crime is making lots of money by redistributing artists works...And that happens in all branches: expensive clothes, jewelry, music..you name it... I tend to adress that as a much bigger problem than just us copying a few songs. When it comes to artwork, and I mean the famous painters, lots of paintings are fake and just hang in museums and we admire the greatness, and the incredible worth it represents yadda yadda...Sometimes genuine ones get stolen and then miracallly found back again, and 10 years later someone finds out its a fake...I agree with you it can't be solved T-Man...What I wanted to say is, that most of the time industries point towards the common civilians that don't do much harm, but are easily seen as the big thief, while hundreds of thousands of dollars are made by the "mafia" that copy everything what brings in money.
Frogboy
Reply #4 Thursday, September 5, 2002 3:28 PM
Reply #4 Thursday, September 5, 2002 3:28 PM
I've generally always been aware that taking the work of others that isn't mine was wrong both legally and morally.
The only thing I've really seen change is that when I was a kid, people still pirated stuff but at least they recognized it was wrong. Most people anyway.
Nowadays, there seems to be people who don't have the moral fortitude to recognize between right and wrong and actually try to argue that they are somehow doing something right by stealing.
The price of things is determined by market forces. I think CDs are too expensive so I generally don't buy them (I don't steal them either).
But yea, taking stuff that you don't own without permission is called stealing. It's not a new concept.
The only thing I've really seen change is that when I was a kid, people still pirated stuff but at least they recognized it was wrong. Most people anyway.
Nowadays, there seems to be people who don't have the moral fortitude to recognize between right and wrong and actually try to argue that they are somehow doing something right by stealing.
The price of things is determined by market forces. I think CDs are too expensive so I generally don't buy them (I don't steal them either).
But yea, taking stuff that you don't own without permission is called stealing. It's not a new concept.
Lecrayon
Reply #5 Thursday, September 5, 2002 3:29 PM
Reply #5 Thursday, September 5, 2002 3:29 PM
About Napster: Napster was finally bought by a German company called Bertelsmann. It was seen as a new tool for customers that wanted to download music for low costs and then burn it themselves on CD. Somehow, the company wasnt able to start this new experiment after the success of Napster when it was a free tool to exchange contents from computers worldwide. I guess there were too many legal issues around it and perhaps wasn't an advantage for the music industry. I don't know. Together with the fall of Napster, Bertelsmann ceases to maintain its large internet media shops and withdraws from the scene. Bertelsmann never made any profit from its online business.
Lecrayon
Reply #6 Thursday, September 5, 2002 4:07 PM
Reply #6 Thursday, September 5, 2002 4:07 PM
Frogboy, sometimes you aren't able to regulate processes that start en masse. Not with old instruments ( 
) anyway. The way it is heading nowadays, is sometimes looking like: a builder of, say a piano, wants a part of the income of the composer. The composer wants all the royalties of sold music and wants a piece of the income a singer gets performing the composers song in a live concert (otherwise it is stealing). Then the builder of the piano wants a piece of that too because it was originally composed on his instrument. Now the composer is going to sue the manager that has hired the theatre because he didnt have the permission to let the performer sing the composers song.
I know, I sound ridiculous.
The end of the song is ?
) anyway. The way it is heading nowadays, is sometimes looking like: a builder of, say a piano, wants a part of the income of the composer. The composer wants all the royalties of sold music and wants a piece of the income a singer gets performing the composers song in a live concert (otherwise it is stealing). Then the builder of the piano wants a piece of that too because it was originally composed on his instrument. Now the composer is going to sue the manager that has hired the theatre because he didnt have the permission to let the performer sing the composers song.I know, I sound ridiculous.
The end of the song is ?
Lecrayon
Reply #7 Thursday, September 5, 2002 4:16 PM
Reply #7 Thursday, September 5, 2002 4:16 PM
sometimes you aren't able to regulate processes that start en masse
I mean here sometimes one isn't able to etc... I keep on mistranslating
I mean here sometimes one isn't able to etc... I keep on mistranslating
Lecrayon
Reply #8 Thursday, September 5, 2002 4:16 PM
Reply #8 Thursday, September 5, 2002 4:16 PM
sometimes you aren't able to regulate processes that start en masse
I mean here sometimes one isn't able to etc... I keep on mistranslating
I mean here sometimes one isn't able to etc... I keep on mistranslating
jcg
Reply #9 Thursday, September 5, 2002 5:50 PM
Reply #9 Thursday, September 5, 2002 5:50 PM
LeCrayon;
The difference with Napster and the like is degree, not kind. With the advent of Napster, what was once something you did with a few friends, (every bit as illegal but extremely limited in scope) became something you did with thousands of strangers. Where before it was unlikely that a bootlegged copy of an album would go farther then ten people, now thanks to file sharing it, could go to ten thousand. Who needs the Mafia? With peer-to-peer file sharing, the common civilian has better distribution channels than the Mafia and without all the overhead. Your argument would actually equates the common civilian with the Mafia and, in regard to pirating, you'd be right.
And to pick nits with your reductio ad absurdum, the piano maker didn't invent the piano he just built it. That would be like Ford trying to license the automobile
The difference with Napster and the like is degree, not kind. With the advent of Napster, what was once something you did with a few friends, (every bit as illegal but extremely limited in scope) became something you did with thousands of strangers. Where before it was unlikely that a bootlegged copy of an album would go farther then ten people, now thanks to file sharing it, could go to ten thousand. Who needs the Mafia? With peer-to-peer file sharing, the common civilian has better distribution channels than the Mafia and without all the overhead. Your argument would actually equates the common civilian with the Mafia and, in regard to pirating, you'd be right.
And to pick nits with your reductio ad absurdum, the piano maker didn't invent the piano he just built it. That would be like Ford trying to license the automobile
migellito
Reply #10 Thursday, September 5, 2002 6:12 PM
Reply #10 Thursday, September 5, 2002 6:12 PM
this mimics a lot technological advances. edison stole a lot of ideas and had few moral qualms about how he used them, becoming famous in the process. napster is biting it now, but has spawned legal [and good] things like emusic.
too bad more people don't realize fanning's not some 'techno-genius' though.
too bad more people don't realize fanning's not some 'techno-genius' though.
bakerstreet
Reply #11 Thursday, September 5, 2002 6:17 PM
Reply #11 Thursday, September 5, 2002 6:17 PM
Corporate mergers have reduced the entertainment industry to a few immense names, each with the lobbying and legal resources to buy both the destruction of anyone who differs with them and the legal means to hold onto those victories. They throw dissent out with their lawyers, and bolt the door with their lobbyists. Does anyone want the entertainment industry equavalent to De Beers?
To think this whole thing has been about file-sharing is infantile. Do you really, really think that mandating how media is created and distributed doesn't give them the ability to hamper the competition? This is a method by which the entertainment industry will cement themselves as a necessary step in the process of creating for-public entertainment media, ensuring them an untouchable amount of control of newcomers, under the guise of an (RIAA, MPAA)"association" (mafia style syndicate).
picture it for a moment.
"No one cometh to the consumer except by me... We'll need a licensing fee if you want to be able to play it on our CD players, and the file format is proprietary, so cough up for that, too. Oh, and if you want commercials and maybe a bit of product placement, you'll have to deal with our network television and motion picture divisions. If you want a video running on our music network, you'll need to give us the right to use it on the next Dawson's Creek spinoff... Welcome to the entertainment industry, here is your complementary jar of petrolium jelly"
Miraculously, against the tide of hateful piracy, Sony has had a revenue record-destroying year in the first 7 moths of 2000. One Sony executive was quoted as saying they would have been very, very pleased if their revenues for the first 6 months had been all they made this year. What they say to their stock-holders and what they say to lawmakers seems to be very, very different.
Napster is dead. Will I buy more music? I used to buy over a dozen CDs a year, even (especially?)when I downloaded music with Napster. I haven't bought a single one this year. When I see a record store, music isn't the first thing that crosses my mind, instead I have a knee-jerk reaction to not buy their product. Not a week goes by that I don't hear about how they are lobbying for the right to hack my compter, DOS attack my IP address, include shrink-wrap EULA on books, and various other products, etc. How's that for advertising? I don't trust subsidized, extorted popular radio, I don't trust MTV, and frankly the thought of seeing something new and rushing out to buy it feels like some sort of consumer mind rape.
Software developer geeks can take the high-road on Slashdot messageboards all they want, but the efforts they are cheering on are solid precedents that and and will be used to stifle open-source and IP rights in the coming years. When hardware-level intellectual propterty protection and the hardships of legal (licensing) compliance prevent the average person from developing an OS, or a skinnable app, or making a indy album, or an indy movie, then what was gained by the creaton of the internet in education and openness will be dead for ever. This is soo much like the middle-ages guild system of economics it makes me want to puke.
Wanna work? You better join the RIAA, or SAG, or the Baseball Player's Union, and be ready to pay licenses for stuff that no one should own, because free market competition is dead. RIP
To think this whole thing has been about file-sharing is infantile. Do you really, really think that mandating how media is created and distributed doesn't give them the ability to hamper the competition? This is a method by which the entertainment industry will cement themselves as a necessary step in the process of creating for-public entertainment media, ensuring them an untouchable amount of control of newcomers, under the guise of an (RIAA, MPAA)"association" (mafia style syndicate).
picture it for a moment.
"No one cometh to the consumer except by me... We'll need a licensing fee if you want to be able to play it on our CD players, and the file format is proprietary, so cough up for that, too. Oh, and if you want commercials and maybe a bit of product placement, you'll have to deal with our network television and motion picture divisions. If you want a video running on our music network, you'll need to give us the right to use it on the next Dawson's Creek spinoff... Welcome to the entertainment industry, here is your complementary jar of petrolium jelly"
Miraculously, against the tide of hateful piracy, Sony has had a revenue record-destroying year in the first 7 moths of 2000. One Sony executive was quoted as saying they would have been very, very pleased if their revenues for the first 6 months had been all they made this year. What they say to their stock-holders and what they say to lawmakers seems to be very, very different.
Napster is dead. Will I buy more music? I used to buy over a dozen CDs a year, even (especially?)when I downloaded music with Napster. I haven't bought a single one this year. When I see a record store, music isn't the first thing that crosses my mind, instead I have a knee-jerk reaction to not buy their product. Not a week goes by that I don't hear about how they are lobbying for the right to hack my compter, DOS attack my IP address, include shrink-wrap EULA on books, and various other products, etc. How's that for advertising? I don't trust subsidized, extorted popular radio, I don't trust MTV, and frankly the thought of seeing something new and rushing out to buy it feels like some sort of consumer mind rape.
Software developer geeks can take the high-road on Slashdot messageboards all they want, but the efforts they are cheering on are solid precedents that and and will be used to stifle open-source and IP rights in the coming years. When hardware-level intellectual propterty protection and the hardships of legal (licensing) compliance prevent the average person from developing an OS, or a skinnable app, or making a indy album, or an indy movie, then what was gained by the creaton of the internet in education and openness will be dead for ever. This is soo much like the middle-ages guild system of economics it makes me want to puke.
Wanna work? You better join the RIAA, or SAG, or the Baseball Player's Union, and be ready to pay licenses for stuff that no one should own, because free market competition is dead. RIP
Bakerstreet
bakerstreet
Reply #13 Thursday, September 5, 2002 6:38 PM
Reply #13 Thursday, September 5, 2002 6:38 PM
should read: "revenue record-destroying year in the first 7 months of 2002."
for some reason every year is 2000 with me now...
for some reason every year is 2000 with me now...
Frogboy
Reply #14 Thursday, September 5, 2002 10:01 PM
Reply #14 Thursday, September 5, 2002 10:01 PM
My beef is that the issue gets clouded. The record industry is a bastard I'm sure but it's it's independent of my beef -- the idea that someone could get rich stealing from anyone (whether it be stealing from bastards or not).
bakerstreet
Reply #15 Thursday, September 5, 2002 11:55 PM
Reply #15 Thursday, September 5, 2002 11:55 PM
This is a guy that made an app that might easily have gone unnoticed had there not been IMMENSE demand. When in history has there every been demand for a technology that didn't somehow appear soon after to fill it? The demand is the issue, and all the counter-intuative reasoning and fascist oversight by the industry will not make the slightest headway in addressing the actual reason for the demand.
A venue was created and users did with it what they wanted. What they did speaks volumes, imho. For every indignant rant about stealing, there were thousands of understood exactly what they were doing. How does one weigh crime on that scale? If tommorow tens of millions of people simply walked out of stores without paying, what would we do about it? Jail them all, or address the cause? That is essentially what happened with Napster, and yet somehow the software is to blame.
Napster wasn't a cause, it was an effect. It was a natural response to an unnatural economical environment. Robin Hood and countless other historical figures were theives, too, and yet somehow we don't use those myths as moral stories against stealing. To address our cultural loathing for theft, and ignore that many times such things are winked at, is telling half the story. There is a lot of winking going on, should it be ignored?
If Mr. Fanning is lauded it is because millions of people got *joy* from the software he made. Is that to be overlooked? Should it be overlooked that people from all over the world were enriched musically when they might not have ever had the resources to otherwise? To villify him for the phenomenon is to completely ignore the millions that used his software and continue to use alternatives.
A venue was created and users did with it what they wanted. What they did speaks volumes, imho. For every indignant rant about stealing, there were thousands of understood exactly what they were doing. How does one weigh crime on that scale? If tommorow tens of millions of people simply walked out of stores without paying, what would we do about it? Jail them all, or address the cause? That is essentially what happened with Napster, and yet somehow the software is to blame.
Napster wasn't a cause, it was an effect. It was a natural response to an unnatural economical environment. Robin Hood and countless other historical figures were theives, too, and yet somehow we don't use those myths as moral stories against stealing. To address our cultural loathing for theft, and ignore that many times such things are winked at, is telling half the story. There is a lot of winking going on, should it be ignored?
If Mr. Fanning is lauded it is because millions of people got *joy* from the software he made. Is that to be overlooked? Should it be overlooked that people from all over the world were enriched musically when they might not have ever had the resources to otherwise? To villify him for the phenomenon is to completely ignore the millions that used his software and continue to use alternatives.
messybuu
Reply #16 Friday, September 6, 2002 12:04 AM
Reply #16 Friday, September 6, 2002 12:04 AM
This year's September is already showing signs of being much better than last year's! 
Robin Hood and countless other historical figures were theives, too, and yet somehow we don't use those myths as moral stories against stealing.
I never remember Robin Hood trying to profit from his ability to steal from others. I also think there's a difference between taxes one are forced to pay and music one isn't forced to purchase.
If Mr. Fanning is lauded it is because millions of people got *joy* from the software he made. To villify him for the phenomenon is to completely ignore the millions that used his software and continue to use alternatives.
Millions of people receive joy from pirated software as well. In fact, the majority of people that I know love free software, but that doesn't make it right. Besides, I'm sure that people had the resources to go to a music store or a Wal-Mart or a Target and purchase a CD.
Robin Hood and countless other historical figures were theives, too, and yet somehow we don't use those myths as moral stories against stealing.
I never remember Robin Hood trying to profit from his ability to steal from others. I also think there's a difference between taxes one are forced to pay and music one isn't forced to purchase.
If Mr. Fanning is lauded it is because millions of people got *joy* from the software he made. To villify him for the phenomenon is to completely ignore the millions that used his software and continue to use alternatives.
Millions of people receive joy from pirated software as well. In fact, the majority of people that I know love free software, but that doesn't make it right. Besides, I'm sure that people had the resources to go to a music store or a Wal-Mart or a Target and purchase a CD.
messybuu
Reply #17 Friday, September 6, 2002 12:06 AM
Reply #17 Friday, September 6, 2002 12:06 AM
Oops, it didn't appear as I hoped it would.
This year's September is already showing signs of being much better than last year's!
Robin Hood and countless other historical figures were theives, too, and yet somehow we don't use those myths as moral stories against stealing.
I never remember Robin Hood trying to profit from his ability to steal from others. I also think there's a difference between taxes one are forced to pay and music one isn't forced to purchase.
If Mr. Fanning is lauded it is because millions of people got *joy* from the software he made. To villify him for the phenomenon is to completely ignore the millions that used his software and continue to use alternatives.
Millions of people receive joy from pirated software as well. In fact, the majority of people that I know love free software, but that doesn't make it right. Besides, I'm sure that people had the resources to go to a music store or a Wal-Mart or a Target and purchase a CD.
This year's September is already showing signs of being much better than last year's!
Robin Hood and countless other historical figures were theives, too, and yet somehow we don't use those myths as moral stories against stealing.
I never remember Robin Hood trying to profit from his ability to steal from others. I also think there's a difference between taxes one are forced to pay and music one isn't forced to purchase.
If Mr. Fanning is lauded it is because millions of people got *joy* from the software he made. To villify him for the phenomenon is to completely ignore the millions that used his software and continue to use alternatives.
Millions of people receive joy from pirated software as well. In fact, the majority of people that I know love free software, but that doesn't make it right. Besides, I'm sure that people had the resources to go to a music store or a Wal-Mart or a Target and purchase a CD.
bakerstreet
Reply #19 Friday, September 6, 2002 3:07 AM
Reply #19 Friday, September 6, 2002 3:07 AM
Messiah:
"What, you can't afford music? Go to wal-mart and be satisfied with what you get. Sorry, but you have been designated this particular selection because of your existence within this geographical and economic demographic. Here, again, is your complimentary jar of petrolium jelly."
While I am sure that Wal-Mart is the great humanist answer to all financial struggle in your locale, it has a sad selection of music, and no validity at all outside the US. ( a rather ethnocentric point, I might add ) If you want to boot-scoot or listen to the backstreet boys, sure, go to wal-mart. A free market is about giving people what they want, not restricing their choices.
It doesn't matter that people don't *need* music. They think they do. Monkeys don't *need* to have bright pink asses to mate, but somehow it has translated itself into the process. People covet, and people need to have and enjoy what other people have and enjoy. Covetousness drives your economy and puts food on your table, like it or not.
Zachary :
People will simply not be ruled by these morality statments. If demand outweighs supply, products and services get cheaper and more available over time to match the demand. This isn't happening because pricing and availablity in the entertainment industry is completely artificial.
The arguments being presented here sound almost like conservative Christian dogma. "Right is right, and it doesn't matter if the whole world disagrees. Strait is the Gate..." Oddly enough, things tend to change from time to time.
Go ahead and make Mr. Fanning out to be some big, evil baddy-waddy, and ignore the fact that tens of millions of people had no moral qualms with using his software, world-wide, and enjoyed the hell out of it. Sure, you are discounting the practice and opinions of millions of fellow human beings, but that is the modus operandi of most moralists. If everyone agreed, it wouldn't seem so smart and special.
this argument has been done-to-death, and it always comes down to personal belief. If it wasn't reasoned into you, I can't reason it out, so I yield the field.
"What, you can't afford music? Go to wal-mart and be satisfied with what you get. Sorry, but you have been designated this particular selection because of your existence within this geographical and economic demographic. Here, again, is your complimentary jar of petrolium jelly."
While I am sure that Wal-Mart is the great humanist answer to all financial struggle in your locale, it has a sad selection of music, and no validity at all outside the US. ( a rather ethnocentric point, I might add ) If you want to boot-scoot or listen to the backstreet boys, sure, go to wal-mart. A free market is about giving people what they want, not restricing their choices.
It doesn't matter that people don't *need* music. They think they do. Monkeys don't *need* to have bright pink asses to mate, but somehow it has translated itself into the process. People covet, and people need to have and enjoy what other people have and enjoy. Covetousness drives your economy and puts food on your table, like it or not.
Zachary :
People will simply not be ruled by these morality statments. If demand outweighs supply, products and services get cheaper and more available over time to match the demand. This isn't happening because pricing and availablity in the entertainment industry is completely artificial.
The arguments being presented here sound almost like conservative Christian dogma. "Right is right, and it doesn't matter if the whole world disagrees. Strait is the Gate..." Oddly enough, things tend to change from time to time.
Go ahead and make Mr. Fanning out to be some big, evil baddy-waddy, and ignore the fact that tens of millions of people had no moral qualms with using his software, world-wide, and enjoyed the hell out of it. Sure, you are discounting the practice and opinions of millions of fellow human beings, but that is the modus operandi of most moralists. If everyone agreed, it wouldn't seem so smart and special.
this argument has been done-to-death, and it always comes down to personal belief. If it wasn't reasoned into you, I can't reason it out, so I yield the field.
CheeseCow
Reply #20 Friday, September 6, 2002 3:32 AM
Reply #20 Friday, September 6, 2002 3:32 AM
Well, now, lets not let this get out of hand, ok? And I think that God made it pretty clear what is the right thing to do. Anyways, p2p networks are used mainly for downloading lots of music, images or movies. I believe the Internet would be a faster place, and everybody would be friendlier, if you had to know the person you were borrowing music or movies from. And then it would be just like sharing record tapes.
Alternativeliy, the people in p2p networks could develop some sense of justice, and share freeware and shareware there instead. Or their art, for that matter. Because they could be useful.
--
Sorry about the bad english, couldn't find the spell checker.
Alternativeliy, the people in p2p networks could develop some sense of justice, and share freeware and shareware there instead. Or their art, for that matter. Because they could be useful.
--
Sorry about the bad english, couldn't find the spell checker.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 1 of 3 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Thursday, September 5, 2002 2:04 PM