Jan

8

I have discussed previously that if keeping Mark McGwire out of the MLB Hall of Fame meant that we could keep Bary Bonds out of the Hall of Fame then it was a sacrafice I was willing to make.  My basic premise was two-fold.  1) We shouldn’t let steroid users into the Hall of Fame.  2) I think Bary Bonds is a jerk so I don’t want him in the Hall of Fame.

I am here to state today a complete reversal of my position.  I made this decision a couple of weeks ago and decided to sleep on it a while.  I have slept on it and decided that it’s the right way of thinking.  My primary motiviation isn’t to find a way to allow Mark McGwire into the Hall of Fame because I think he is a nice guy.  I’m not sure that even if he didn’t use steroids he belongs in the HoF.  My primary motiviation is to find a reasonable way to judge this era in baseball.

Anything that lasts a hundred years won’t stay the same over that time.  Baseball is no exception.  One of the problems of comparing players of vastly different time periods is that the game was different and was played different in those time periods.  When looking at who belongs in the HoF and who doesn’t we don’t try to equate the periods.  We decide whether the specific player was a HoF player during his era.

Right or wrong, good or bad, pretty or ugly, the recent era in baseball will be known as the “Steroid Era”.  There is simply no going back.  This era in baseball is marked with the knowledge that some players had an unfair advantage over others because they used performance enhancing drugs.  They’re not all clean but I doubt they are all dirty either.  That is the simple fact of the era.  So, given what happened during the era we have to decide “who was best and deserves HoF status?”

The fact is Mark McGwire (might have been) one of the best of the “Steroid Era”.  Barry Bonds is one of the best of the “Steroid Era”.  They deserve consideration for the HoF independent of whether they used steroids or not because they were some of the best of their “era”.  Does that mean that some will not be considered because they chose to play by the rules?  Yes.  Could they have been considered if everyone was clean?  Yes.  Is that unfair to them?  Yes. When deciding who is the best of an era we simply cannot play “what ifs”.  We don’t have the ability to go back in time and re-calculate performances based on “what ifs”. It would all be speculation with a wide margin for error.

So, we look at what really happened and judge it from there.  It’s all we can do. 

You don’t know how much it pains me to come to this conclusion because it pretty much, in my mind, puts Barry Bonds in the HoF.  But I think it is the only reasonable way of judging people of the era available to us.  We’ll never know the whole story of who did and who didn’t.  The only reasonable options are to drop steroid use from consideration or not to let anyone in from the era.  I think the second choice is a lot more unreasonable than the first choice.

So, there we have it.

Jan

3

So, it seems that the “real” media has actually covered the latest lawsuit by the RIAA that I already discussed after coverage from the Washington Post.  A lot of coverage is saying “no, no, no, the RIAA did NOT say ripping CDs is illegal”.  However, what they are missing is that it is in fact the RIAAs stance that ripping CDs IS illegal.  You want to parse words?  Let’s parse words.  From the RIAAs website:

Copying CDs

  • It’s okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes.
  • It’s also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) – but, again, not for commercial purposes.
  • Beyond that, there’s no legal “right” to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:
    • The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
    • The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.
  • The owners of copyrighted music have the right to use protection technology to allow or prevent copying.
  • Remember, it’s never okay to sell or make commercial use of a copy that you make.

THAT is what the RIAA says about copying to your computer.  Notice the bold and especially underlined parts.  They don’t say it’s legal.  They say “it won’t raise concerns”.  In other words they are reserving the right to say it’s illegal should they so chose in the future.  Another way of putting it is to say “We promise not to try and sue you or this as long as you follow our little rules we have set up. 

I want to emphasis this the RIAA itself does not say that copying a CD for personal use is legal!!!!!!!!  What hey say is that it usually won’t raise concerns.  That means there are circumstances in which you follow their little guidelines and it can raise concerns.  I personally would like to know what my liability is.  Right now I don’t.  I know that I will “usually” be ok as long as I follow their guidelines.  I have no idea when I wont be ok even if I do follow their guidelines.

In other words they hold the keys to the kingdom.  The U.S. government has relequished control over copyright enforcement to the RIAA.  Don’t get me wrong; they should be able to do some enforcement of their copyright.  But should they be the ones to decide what is fair use and legal and what is not?  From all appearances and practical purposes, right now they are. 

 

Search


Links

Archives