<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The RIAA chooses Linux</title>
	<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/12528</link>
	<description>p2pnet.net - reader powered</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:37:45 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Henry Emrich</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/12528#comment-147765</link>
		<author>Henry Emrich</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2007 04:32:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/12528#comment-147765</guid>
		<description>Complete bulshit spin (as usual for this site!) :)
    First, there's nothing "ironic" in the RIAA choosing Linux as opposed to Micro$uck's bloat-ware, for two very obvious reasons:

   1. Most of the Linux scene is agressively pro-copyright, all of their "copyleft" blather to the contrary.  As I've stated numerous times before, the all-precious GPL couldn't be enforced to prevent "tivo-ization" or any of Stallman's other pet peeves, if it wasn't for the fact that the software licensed under GPL is (grin-wink) COPYRIGHTED!  
    Yes, the REAL "irony" here is the hypocrites on this site who spend huge amounts of time and effort defending the rampant disregard for copyright, while simultaneously bleating on and on about GPL V. 3.
   I don't buy it.  

    Of course, nobody who reads this site will actually see the difference between using software which is LICENSED TO PERMIT AND ENCOURAGE widespread distribution/modification/use, and p2p sites apps whose primary function (despite all of the rhetorical spin) is to facilitate violation of copyright, but hey....

  (Keep in mind that I'm not neccesarily the unswerving advocate of copyright that people might believe me to be from my comments on this site.   I also don't neccesarily think all copyright-violation is bad.   But I really resent it when people attempt to camoflage their actions, and sidestep the actual issues.  The fact his that under current copyright law, most of what occurs on p2p/bittorent is "illegal", and as such, potentially opens one up to penalties.  

    I would suspect that a significant amount of the people on this site would approve of (let's say) the  FSF attempting to prosecute over a violation of the GPL.  Double standard?  Damn right....but the fact is that Stallman is also (ironically) not regarded as a corporate pig (primarily because his org. is a nonprofit, and we ALL  know that Nonprofits always mean well, and for-profit companies are always evil.)

     So no.  The only "irony" here would be if the RIAA (whose primary beef is that people are violating copyright, and mostly don't give a shit) were to violate the terms of Linux's licensing (thus violating copyright themselves.)  

   Try putting some actually logic, reasoning, or quality reporting into it  next time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Complete bulshit spin (as usual for this site!) <img src='http://www.p2pnet.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /><br />
    First, there&#8217;s nothing &#8220;ironic&#8221; in the RIAA choosing Linux as opposed to Micro$uck&#8217;s bloat-ware, for two very obvious reasons:</p>
<p>   1. Most of the Linux scene is agressively pro-copyright, all of their &#8220;copyleft&#8221; blather to the contrary.  As I&#8217;ve stated numerous times before, the all-precious GPL couldn&#8217;t be enforced to prevent &#8220;tivo-ization&#8221; or any of Stallman&#8217;s other pet peeves, if it wasn&#8217;t for the fact that the software licensed under GPL is (grin-wink) COPYRIGHTED!<br />
    Yes, the REAL &#8220;irony&#8221; here is the hypocrites on this site who spend huge amounts of time and effort defending the rampant disregard for copyright, while simultaneously bleating on and on about GPL V. 3.<br />
   I don&#8217;t buy it.  </p>
<p>    Of course, nobody who reads this site will actually see the difference between using software which is LICENSED TO PERMIT AND ENCOURAGE widespread distribution/modification/use, and p2p sites apps whose primary function (despite all of the rhetorical spin) is to facilitate violation of copyright, but hey&#8230;.</p>
<p>  (Keep in mind that I&#8217;m not neccesarily the unswerving advocate of copyright that people might believe me to be from my comments on this site.   I also don&#8217;t neccesarily think all copyright-violation is bad.   But I really resent it when people attempt to camoflage their actions, and sidestep the actual issues.  The fact his that under current copyright law, most of what occurs on p2p/bittorent is &#8220;illegal&#8221;, and as such, potentially opens one up to penalties.  </p>
<p>    I would suspect that a significant amount of the people on this site would approve of (let&#8217;s say) the  FSF attempting to prosecute over a violation of the GPL.  Double standard?  Damn right&#8230;.but the fact is that Stallman is also (ironically) not regarded as a corporate pig (primarily because his org. is a nonprofit, and we ALL  know that Nonprofits always mean well, and for-profit companies are always evil.)</p>
<p>     So no.  The only &#8220;irony&#8221; here would be if the RIAA (whose primary beef is that people are violating copyright, and mostly don&#8217;t give a shit) were to violate the terms of Linux&#8217;s licensing (thus violating copyright themselves.)  </p>
<p>   Try putting some actually logic, reasoning, or quality reporting into it  next time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
