On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 6:55 PM, David Arcos <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:david.arcos@gmail.com">david.arcos@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>> In example, think of Google. They do the same than TPB (index
torrents, allow searches). They have advertisements. But they don't do
filesharing, right?<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Fedor Khod'kov <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:fedor76@istra.ru">fedor76@istra.ru</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
TV and radio is different case - they don't just help others to play videos and music, they play it themselves, earning money as a result.<br>
So they should pay the authors just as publishers.<br></blockquote><div><br>I agree with most of what you said, but there still are a few things I would like to precise.<br><br>For example, imagine a radio who split in two parts, the first one only stocking music, and the second one only managing a website (or something equivalent) with advertisement that gives you access to this music.<br>
<br>Depending on how you define everything, there could be a way of not being considered as a publisher (and avoid paying the authors), while still doing the same in practice.<br><br>Note that I speak in general and not of TPB here, as far as I know they have no special connexion with the original uploaders of the files indexed by their search engine…<br>
</div></div>