LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

MPAA: No Proof Needed, Just Hand Over the Money

Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 3:30:48 pm PDT

Wow. The MPAA thinks that because modern technology makes it hard to legally prove the origins of copyrighted materials distributed via the net, they should be able to collect damages from people without proving anything.

The Motion Picture Association of America said  Friday intellectual-property holders should have the right to collect damages, perhaps as much as $150,000 per copyright violation, without having to prove infringement.

“Mandating such proof could thus have the pernicious effect of depriving copyright owners of a practical remedy against massive copyright infringement in many instances,” MPAA attorney Marie L. van Uitert wrote Friday to the federal judge overseeing the Jammie Thomas trial.

“It is often very difficult, and in some cases, impossible, to provide such direct proof when confronting modern forms of copyright infringement, whether over P2P networks or otherwise; understandably, copyright infringers typically do not keep records of infringement,” van Uitert wrote on behalf of the movie studios, a position shared with the Recording Industry Association of America, which sued Thomas, the single mother of two.

I’m strongly in favor of protecting copyrights, and against this kind of piracy, but this proposal just sounds completely backward and un-American. The technology has evolved to a point where they can’t control it, and instead of coming up with creative solutions the big media companies are lashing out like wounded animals.

Advertisement

149 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 jcm  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:32:13pm

Who needs proof!
/MPAA
/ID

*me bad*

2 HelloDare  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:34:27pm

Hey, MPAA infringed my copyrighted material. Take my word on it.

3 seekeroftruth  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:35:00pm

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
I am all for protecting copyright material, but this is the wrong way to go about it.

4 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:35:03pm
5 pat  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:35:15pm

I think I have had a copyright infringed upon also. Send check.

6 mama winger  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:35:32pm

I don't understand. If someone sues you, isn't the burden of proof on them? Aren't people presumed innocent until evidence is shown of guilt?

7 mama winger  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:36:20pm

re: #4 buzzsawmonkey

I am sorry this thread begins so close to sundown on Friday, since it means I can't participate in any meaningful way.

You could convert to Pastafarian, and hang around and eat spaghetti.

8 see bs  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:36:22pm

Yea.....Ok..... No Proof. Sorry. This might fly in some backwater nations like Iran, but not the US.

It's called the legal system. Sure it needs work and is not perfect, but that's how my father did it, and its how America does it and its worked pretty well so far....

9 ZK273  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:36:22pm

"Proof, schmoof, just give us all of your money!"

10 HelloDare  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:36:26pm

re: #5 pat

You, me: class action suit.

11 pegcity  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:36:44pm

Utorrent with Ipfilter,

MPAA kiss my ass Dinasour losers

12 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:36:58pm
13 mama winger  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:37:30pm

re: #12 buzzsawmonkey

But that would be wrong.

And messy.

See you tomorrow night, buzz. Good Sabbath to you. :)

14 David IV of Georgia  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:37:50pm

Can anyone enforce the MPAA's "ruling" without proving the violation in court?

I know hey are frustrated, but... sheesh.

15 opnion  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:38:05pm

Whty bother with burden of proof? It is so annoying & really hard.
Hey, if a Gitmo prisoner infriges, then what is the burden of proof?
You know, they should have super constitutional protection

16 DistantThunder  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:38:12pm

Chutzpah

17 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:38:49pm

Copyright law is one thing. The due process clause is another.

Granting the ability to fine without basis is a clear violation of due process.

BTW : Isn't this the industry that is dominated by Democrats? Where are they - they are supposed to be protecting us from "Corporatists".

18 pat  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:39:00pm

re: #10 HelloDare

You, me: class action suit.

Don't forget AP.

19 Ma Sands  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:39:01pm

re: #7 mama winger

I googled that.....I can't believe there is such a thing.....giggling here..... :)

20 schultzw  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:39:33pm

Give it a few years: the MPAA will be useless. Look at what's happened in the recording industry: Bands have begun to release albums for free internet download. Perhaps the MPAA should consider the changing nature of copywritten material.

21 VegasRick  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:39:34pm

re: #13 mama winger

See you tomorrow night, buzz. Good Sabbath to you. :)

I am pretty sure that I posted that exact same thing a while ago.

You owe me some money now.

22 mama winger  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:40:08pm

re: #19 Ma Sands

I googled that.....I can't believe there is such a thing.....giggling here..... :)

Maybe we could incorporate the whole spaghetti thing into Pentacostalism. :)

23 mama winger  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:40:29pm

re: #21 VegasRick

I am pretty sure that I posted that exact same thing a while ago.

You owe me some money now.

Prove it.

24 Ma Sands  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:40:45pm

buzz.....I thought you were only the most accomplished lyric writer.....I learned yesterday that you attach tunes to your lyrics too.....amazing.....I'll watch for the next one. :)

25 schultzw  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:40:47pm

re: #22 mama winger

your Cubs took game 1, barely, but wait until tomorrow. The Sox will come back.

26 pat  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:40:57pm

re: #22 mama winger

Pentapastalism?

27 see bs  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:42:02pm

re: #25 schultzw

Back to Back Jacks, and a GW home run.... GO CUBBIES!

28 mama winger  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:42:07pm

re: #25 schultzw

your Cubs took game 1, barely, but wait until tomorrow. The Sox will come back.

I'm suing you for that.

29 VegasRick  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:42:10pm

re: #23 mama winger

Prove it.

Well umm, there is the umm......than again I could mention...........ummm....well.......see there was that time that ummm.

Good Point!

30 opnion  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:42:24pm

re: #17 karmic_inquisitor

Copyright law is one thing. The due process clause is another.

Granting the ability to fine without basis is a clear violation of due process.

BTW : Isn't this the industry that is dominated by Democrats? Where are they - they are supposed to be protecting us from "Corporatists".

Uh ,their soap box screaming about Constitutional rights does not apply to Hollywood.
Hollywood is their honey pot of cash & where GED deprived actors say all kinds of nutty stuff against Republicans.

31 mama winger  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:42:25pm

re: #27 see bs

Back to Back Jacks, and a GW home run.... GO CUBBIES!

Woo HOOOOOOOO !

32 Charles  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:42:26pm

re: #17 karmic_inquisitor

BTW : Isn't this the industry that is dominated by Democrats? Where are they - they are supposed to be protecting us from "Corporatists".

Absolutely - Democrats (if not leftists) top to bottom, including the law firms.

33 schultzw  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:42:54pm

re: #28 mama winger

I'll countersue. I'm not a hillbilly who runs on the field w/ my pops and attacks umpires.

34 mama winger  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:42:55pm

re: #26 pat

Pentapastalism?

Oooooo - good one ! Lemme buy you a beer.

35 calvin coolidge  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:43:11pm

Damn you Al Gore for bringing all these problems when you invented the internet. At least your global warming invention isn't going to cost anyone........oh......wait.

36 mama winger  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:43:30pm

re: #33 schultzw

I'll countersue. I'm not a hillbilly who runs on the field w/ my pops and attacks umpires.

There are kooks in every religion. :)

37 opnion  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:43:31pm

re: #25 schultzw

your Cubs took game 1, barely, but wait until tomorrow. The Sox will come back.

Right on! Five games left, play ball!

38 mama winger  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:44:15pm

re: #37 opnion

Right on! Five games left, play ball!

If only they could .......

OUCH ! stop hitting me !

39 aunursa  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:45:05pm

AP: we'll charge for fair use
MPAA: we don't need to prove copyright infringement. Just take our word

Who's next?

40 schultzw  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:45:08pm

re: #36 mama winger

Is Cub-fandom a religion? Discuss amongst yourselves. Methinks it's a cult.

41 mama winger  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:45:41pm

re: #40 schultzw

Is Cub-fandom a religion? Discuss amongst yourselves. Methinks it's a cult.

It's a blessing and a curse. It is my destiny.

42 schultzw  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:46:06pm

re: #39 aunursa

MSNBC: We're idiots, and we know it!

43 opnion  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:46:08pm

re: #33 schultzw

I'll countersue. I'm not a hillbilly who runs on the field w/ my pops and attacks umpires.


Ah, you are speaking of the Lagues. They spent all day getting really, really drunk at Wrigley, before they segued to Comiskey.
Both clubs were home that day.

44 schultzw  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:46:24pm

re: #43 opnion

Count it!

45 mama winger  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:46:59pm

As much as I'd like to stay here and beat up the White Sox fans, I have to go out to dinner :)

bbl

46 schultzw  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:47:08pm

re: #43 opnion

after all, 85% of the world works; the other 15% go to Cubs games.

-credit goes to former Cub manager Lee Elia, ca. 1983

47 schultzw  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:47:21pm

re: #45 mama winger

Enjoy!

48 Roentgen  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:47:33pm

Ho-o-o-o-r-a-y for Holl-y-wood.

49 Ma Sands  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:48:03pm

re: #40 schultzw

I ride above it.....can't get interested no matter how I try.....


/ ducks :)

50 opnion  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:49:03pm

re: #46 schultzw

after all, 85% of the world works; the other 15% go to Cubs games.

-credit goes to former Cub manager Lee Elia, ca. 1983

Thats why they have so many day games. Their fans don't have anything like jobs to go

51 loppyd  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:49:55pm

Crazy.

We think you'r stealing so we're going to sue?

52 debutaunt  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:51:05pm

re: #5 pat

I think I have had a copyright infringed upon also. Send check.

Your bank account number?

53 zmdavid  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:51:09pm

re: #43 opnion

Ah, you are speaking of the Lagues. They spent all day getting really, really drunk at Wrigley, before they segued to Comiskey.
Both clubs were home that day.

Can drunks operate a segue? Oops I was thinking Segway.

54 debutaunt  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:52:00pm

re: #7 mama winger

You could convert to Pastafarian, and hang around and eat spaghetti.

My people know their pasta!

55 opnion  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:52:11pm

re: #45 mama winger

As much as I'd like to stay here and beat up the White Sox fans, I have to go out to dinner :)

bbl


Seriously enjoy dinner & the Cub victory.
Tomorrow is another day & we'll all convene then & discuss,oh I don't know, SOX WIN!

56 LeePro  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:52:56pm

Back on topic : : : ducking : : :

Is this still ongoing from way back in the "Napster" days?
How do they know if "Joe Citizen" actually downloaded "abc" and "def" and "xyz"?

Just curious, ya' know...

57 opnion  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:53:09pm

re: #53 zmdavid

Can drunks operate a segue? Oops I was thinking Segway.


I think that they are exactly the same, only different.

58 grumpy old codger  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:53:36pm

Did the MPAA tear a page from the ASCAP manual for shakedown artists?

59 Fenway_Nation  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:53:38pm

re: #40 schultzw

Is Cub-fandom a religion? Discuss amongst yourselves. Methinks it's a cult.

It's not even the biggest religion in baseball....

60 Mike in Georgia  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:54:11pm

I hope the porn people don't hear about this.

61 Mike in Georgia  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:55:19pm

That was for research purposes only.

62 loppyd  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:55:37pm

re: #59 Fenway_Nation

It's not even the biggest religion in baseball....

Our Sox will be wearing their lucky green unis tonight to honor the Celtics.

63 loppyd  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:55:56pm

re: #61 Mike in Georgia

That was for research purposes only.

:~)

64 zmdavid  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:56:28pm

re: #56 LeePro

Back on topic : : : ducking : : :

Is this still ongoing from way back in the "Napster" days?
How do they know if "Joe Citizen" actually downloaded "abc" and "def" and "xyz"?

Just curious, ya' know...

It looks like they are going after someone who put files in an open directory on his/her computer to share, but they can't tell if anyone actually copied them from there.

65 Fenway_Nation  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:56:39pm

re: #62 loppyd

Our Sox will be wearing their lucky green unis tonight to honor the Celtics.

Sweet....I wish that could show up on the radio a little better.

*pout*

66 HelloDare  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:56:50pm

Off topic:

Who won the 7th game of the NBA playoffs last night?

67 schultzw  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:57:17pm

re: #64 zmdavid

so they'll track the source, per se, of these pirated media, but not those who partake in said media?

68 Fenway_Nation  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:57:48pm

re: #66 HelloDare

Off topic:

Who won the 7th game of the NBA playoffs last night?

The Los Angeles Kobes?

69 zmdavid  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:57:59pm

re: #57 opnion

Segway

70 opnion  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:58:35pm

re: #59 Fenway_Nation

It's not even the biggest religion in baseball....

I know what you are saying, but a Cub fan is a different critter.
They talk about the history of the Cubs & usually tear up.
The history is 100 years of pure futility & wait till next year.
When the team is rotten, they actually gloat sbout out drawing the Sox.
That is kinda like bragging about paying to see a really bad movie, over & over.

71 HelloDare  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:59:50pm

re: #68 Fenway_Nation

The Los Angeles Kobes?

Damn, I had money on the Celtics.

72 Blitherakt  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:59:55pm

re: #2 HelloDare

Hey, MPAA infringed my copyrighted material. Take my word on it.

Exactly. If this actually works, I see a huge money-making opportunity for people in the future...

73 zmdavid  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:00:10pm

re: #67 schultzw

so they'll track the source, per se, of these pirated media, but not those who partake in said media?

I'm sure they would if they could.

74 Da_Beerfreak  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:01:01pm

re: #40 schultzw

Is Cub-fandom a religion? Discuss amongst yourselves. Methinks it's a cult.

What about us few loony Twinsafairians?
// Ready for my Friday's Leinenkugel.
// {;-)™

75 Fenway_Nation  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:01:01pm

re: #71 HelloDare

Damn, I had money on the Celtics.

Good thing they won on Tuesday night....

76 HelloDare  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:01:14pm

re: #72 Blitherakt

Exactly. If this actually works, I see a huge money-making opportunity for people in the future...

I can her the radio ads now. "Make money at home in your spare time..."

77 schultzw  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:02:19pm

re: #74 Da_Beerfreak

Well, they do have one of the worst places of worship, if you will. At least it's decently cheap, especially for college students on Wed night.

78 loppyd  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:03:13pm

re: #65 Fenway_Nation

Sweet....I wish that could show up on the radio a little better.

*pout*

You no longer live in NESN range, right? Where are you again?

79 Roentgen  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:04:37pm

More interesting to me is the quagmire the music industry now finds itself in. CD sales have plummeted, with legit digital sales only recuperating a small fraction of the revenue lost to illegal downloading and copying. Of course the record companies are partially at fault. They ignored the elephant in the living room until it was too late, and have done little more than play legal whack-a-mole with down-loaders that come up on their radar. Their business plan is collapsing and it's hard to feel sorry for them. Yet this is a vitally important business that brings to the marketplace something we will always need: music. And no matter how you feel about these companies, they are responsible for bringing music to life by seeking out and supporting new talent that could not make it without the company's initial support.
If they had has some insight, they could have beaten Napster and the other services to the punch, and presented the public with a Superior product. Instead, they try and play catch-up, clinging to their CD's and attorneys.
Performers that already have made money can offer their music cheaply of even for free on-line, but that only makes it harder for the new stuff to get going.

80 zmdavid  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:05:13pm

re: #70 opnion

I know what you are saying, but a Cub fan is a different critter.
They talk about the history of the Cubs & usually tear up.
The history is 100 years of pure futility & wait till next year.
When the team is rotten, they actually gloat sbout out drawing the Sox.
That is kinda like bragging about paying to see a really bad movie, over & over.

It's only been that way since 1984
Cubs attendance

81 Fenway_Nation  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:06:55pm

re: #78 loppyd

You no longer live in NESN range, right? Where are you again?


Very much West Coast now, altho' I'm able to keep up with the Red Sox thanks to my complimentary XM Sattelite radio....courtesey of the St. Louis Cardinals, of all organizations.

I already got to see them play the Mariners (Bedard Vs Wakefield) at SafeCo earlier this year, and I have every intention of heading up the road to catch them versus the Angels next month....

82 itellu3times  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:07:17pm

Y'all know that you paid a few pennies per blank VHS tape or diskette from about 1988 to ... the present, I guess, if you still buy VHS tapes or diskettes! Money going to Hollywood studios just in case somebody used them to hold illegal copies of their movies or music ... hmm, actually I'm not sure who got the diskette money, Microsoft and other publishers, maybe.

83 norar  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:11:53pm

WOW! And what happens with 'innocent until proven guilty' concept? Gone with the wind?

84 Alouette  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:12:28pm

re: #4 buzzsawmonkey

I am sorry this thread begins so close to sundown on Friday, since it means I can't participate in any meaningful way.

It's still an hour and a half till Shabbat where I am.

85 Thanos  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:12:34pm

Hey, did someone upthread say Hillbilly? [warning: very disturbing photoshop.]

86 CoCo  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:13:35pm

OT:

Zimbabwe's Tsvangirai mulls abandoning run-off

HARARE (Reuters) - Zimbabwe's opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai is considering whether to pull out of the June 27 presidential run-off election, fearing it will be a charade, a spokesman said on Friday.

A growing number of African nations, the United States and former colonial power Britain have said they do not believe the poll would be free and fair because of violence that the opposition blames on veteran President Robert Mugabe.

87 Alouette  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:14:28pm

In Moscow there is a huge mall that sells nothing but pirated DVD's and software.

I could have been so busted bringing that stuff into the U.S.

88 schultzw  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:16:26pm

re: #85 Thanos

HAHAHAHAHA! Love it!

89 WhiteRasta  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:17:10pm

re: #87 Alouette

A friend of mine lives in Chen-Zhen, China and reports the same thing...

90 gop_patriot  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:17:51pm

re: #86 CoCo

Was he the one whose wife was butchered by Mugabe's thugs?

91 thebeasle  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:17:55pm

I think I have had a copyright infringed upon also. Send check.

lol.

92 schultzw  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:18:48pm

re: #84 Alouette

So the Jewish Sabbath doesn't allow browsing on the internet? or does it forbid LGF?

93 Colonel Panik  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:19:19pm

re: #79 Roentgen

They could have dropped the prices of CD's years ago.
They could actually hire some musical talent.

People are tired of paying for recording execs Andean Marching Powder habits.

94 norar  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:20:08pm

re: #79 Roentgen

And no matter how you feel about these companies, they are responsible for bringing music to life by seeking out and supporting new talent that could not make it without the company's initial support.

Cry me a river. They still can't replace "innocent until proven guilty" with "guilty regardless whether we can prove it"? Or can they?

95 CoCo  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:20:48pm

re: #90 gop_patriot

Was he the one whose wife was butchered by Mugabe's thugs?

No, that was the wife of one of the MDC (opposition) leaders...he was the mayor of Harare.

Sad days...Mugabe has said he will not be removed from office unless God removes him.

96 OldLineTexan  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:20:58pm

re: #89 WhiteRasta

A friend of mine lives in Chen-Zhen, China and reports the same thing...

I was near Shenzhen on business; they have pirated/fake everything, I am told.

My company will FIRE you for trying to bring pirated s/w or movies back.

97 loppyd  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:22:12pm

re: #81 Fenway_Nation

Very much West Coast now, altho' I'm able to keep up with the Red Sox thanks to my complimentary XM Sattelite radio....courtesey of the St. Louis Cardinals, of all organizations.

I already got to see them play the Mariners (Bedard Vs Wakefield) at SafeCo earlier this year, and I have every intention of heading up the road to catch them versus the Angels next month....

Kicking it West Coast now, huh?

Well, it's a rain delay right now so you aren't missing anything.

The BF and I are trying to get tickets for the series against Baltimore in August. Never been to Camden Yards....

98 Alouette  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:23:09pm

re: #92 schultzw

So the Jewish Sabbath doesn't allow browsing on the internet? or does it forbid LGF?

No computer on Sabbath. (Actually it's good to get away from it at least one day a week)

99 schultzw  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:24:41pm

re: #98 Alouette

I'm guessing that's a recent interpretation of the Torah ;)

/even this Gentile appreciates time away from the ol' PC

100 Roentgen  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:27:55pm

re: #93 Colonel Panik

Good point.

101 Steffan  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:28:49pm

re: #58 grumpy old codger

Did the MPAA tear a page from the ASCAP manual for shakedown artists?

More like the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton model. That judge ought to hand the MPAA their heads.

Better yet, the judge should set their heads on stakes next to the main gate as a warning to others who want to subvert due process.

102 Fenway_Nation  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:29:10pm

re: #97 loppyd

Kicking it West Coast now, huh?

Well, it's a rain delay right now so you aren't missing anything.

The BF and I are trying to get tickets for the series against Baltimore in August. Never been to Camden Yards....

It's very nice and as far as I know, still reasonably priced. Also pretty easily accesable by public transport in my experience (MARC/Amtrak to light-rail).

I'm going back east in 2 weeks and me and the family are supposed to be catching Sox/Yankees in the Death Star um Toilet Yankee Stadium on the 4th of July.

Since 2000, I've caught the Red Sox at PetCo Park, Angel Stadium, SafeCo Field, Dodger Stadium, (old) Busch Stadium, the Vet, (old)Qualcomm/Jack Murphy Stadium, Wrigley Field, Camden Yards....and naturally, Fenway Park.

103 itellu3times  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:29:34pm

re: #99 schultzw

I'm guessing that's a recent interpretation of the Torah

No work -> can't light a fire, but can have one already lit (or have a gentile light it) -> no hitting switches or keys, ... except in emergencies, of course.

I guess the "already lit" exception is how observant Jews keep the refrigerator running!

104 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:31:38pm
105 schultzw  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:31:52pm

re: #103 itellu3times

So what can be done on the Sabbath?

106 Steffan  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:33:16pm

re: #66 HelloDare

Off topic:

Who won the 7th game of the NBA playoffs last night?

So your planet had a 7th game? What color is the sky there? :p

107 Catttt  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:34:51pm

re: #4 buzzsawmonkey

I am sorry this thread begins so close to sundown on Friday, since it means I can't participate in any meaningful way.

I will, however, observe that the vast percentage of articles on copyright--particularly online, where there is a strong prejudice against copyright enforcement--tend to leave out important details as a matter of course, and that that this article is no exception.

While it appears that the MPAA is arguing against the need for proof of any kind, I cannot imagine that that is truly the case, and suspect that at least some important information has been elided from the reportage.

The MPAA/RIAA argument is that if you have for example a copyrighted MP3 in a folder on your comp where it COULD be uploaded by someone else, then you are guilty of infringment. They argue that no proof of uploading is needed. Merely having it on YOUR drive where it could be uploaded P2P makes you guilty of infringement, they say. Why? Because it's really hard to prove it was uploaded.

Because the software that makes P2P so easy is merely the conduit for sharing, the MPAA cannot go after them. It is a brilliant piece of work designed by this guy (I'll bet MPAA hates him) and perfectly legal, so it pops up everywhere. They are never going to beat it via the law as it is now, so they want to "tweak" the law to their ends rather than think of a better way. The other problem is the bad guy is in essence everywhere also - millions of people use P2P - so catching one person at a time will not stem the tide.

To me, the honchos want to twist the law to sock the little guy. They think they can get away with this twisting, but I don't think the court will allow it, as it is obviously unconstitutional. I understand their problem, but this is no way to try to fight it.

108 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:35:33pm
109 schultzw  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:36:57pm

re: #108 buzzsawmonkey

Good idea for all of us, both Jew and Gentile!

110 Steffan  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:37:18pm

re: #95 CoCo

No, that was the wife of one of the MDC (opposition) leaders...he was the mayor of Harare.

Sad days...Mugabe has said he will not be removed from office unless God removes him.

He ought to be careful about saying things like that. Somebody might think God needs some assistance.

111 Catttt  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:38:57pm

re: #108 buzzsawmonkey

Being in the hood I live in, I know better than to go to the store say an hour or two before sundown on Friday. :D

112 Catttt  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:41:16pm

Remember some years back when they busted a guy who had a lot of "Usher" items for upload? Turns out he was a professor, and the Usher items were related to Edgar Allen Poe. True story.

113 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:43:19pm
114 WayDownSouthInBama  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:48:25pm

The MPAA has the same problem as many leftist. It's always someone else's fault that they fail. The MPAA has watched their movies tank at the box office and refuse to blame themselves for making crappy movies. Instead,they now resort to their own version of piracy by performing Constitutional Rights Infringements against their customers. Idiots. They can't make the money they want to make legally so now they have resorted to extortion. Screw'um. They will NEVER see me at another Theater as long as I live.

115 reine.de.tout  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:56:57pm

re: #108 buzzsawmonkey

Pray. Learn. Eat. Talk. Walk. Enjoy the break from the other stuff.

Sounds like a good plan.

116 Catttt  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:57:35pm

re: #113 buzzsawmonkey


I will wait to see a lengthier and clearer explication of the legal theory, thank you.

Person to person sharing has, in fact, been depressed somewhat by the prospect of being held liable. Good thing, too--the country needs a practical copyright education, and having to pay over cash for stealing other people's work is the most practical education there is.

There is nothing unconstitutional about holding people liable for having material in their possession that they cannot prove they paid for. Copyright infringement is proved by substantial similarity--not an issue when you have an exact copy in your possession--and access. So if you've got it and you didn't pay for it, your possession of the material is self-evident infringement.

While I understand the emotional appeal of siding with "the little guy," doing so in a way which enables wholesale theft ultimately hurts the little guy, which is the artist who creates the work.

I am sure there will be other opportunities to hash this out, but it is time to quit until late tomorrow night--or, more probably, Sunday.

Hey, man, you don't have to listen to me, but you also don't have to get up on you high horse and insult me. I know what I know, and you don't have to be the head of the Supremes to understand this.

Re the unconstitutional bit - you misread what I wrote. It is not that you have given mp3s (paid for or not) that they are charging people with. That is not the issue.

They are charging people with having items on their computer that can be uploaded by someone else for free, even though they cannot prove anyone ever uploaded those items. This includes BOUGHT and PAID for items on your computer. If you put them in a folder where there is open access, then, they say, you are guilty. See?

I am not "siding with the little guy." I don't have a horse in this race. I am saying, quite without emotion, tyvm, that the little guy is easier to finger than it would be for these honchos to, as I said, come up with a better way. The access folders are sitting ducks. Finding people in the act of uploading things is virtually impossible with current technology.

117 Catttt  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:58:27pm

PIMR - last sentence "in the act of DOWNLOADING."

118 eaglewingz08  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:58:38pm

A problem with the RIAA (Recording Industry) and the MPAA, is that instead of improving product they are going after their major consumers, not a great business plan. Another problem is that these organizations engender very little love or respect in the public. The public have heard decades of testimony from artists of how the companies screw them, and now the public sees them screwing the public as well. The business practices are so shady that the analogy would be (if the RIAA or MPAA were mortgage companies), that after you paid off the mortgage, the companies would still own your homes and would kick you out so they could retransfer your homes to other suckers for the same deal. This is karma for these organizations' years of deplorable practices. Another problem for these companies is that they no longer have carte blanche in the Courts. These suits started against the most vulnerable consumers, who could not afford to litigate the suits and were frightened by the numbers thrown around by MPAA and RIAA.
Then a few brave souls started to lawyer up and started challenging the assumptions of these companies, and soon, some Judges started to question them and started making rulings against them, and other judges are starting to use those precedents in other cases around the country. In addition, the SCOTUS under Chief Judge Roberts has started to tighten up pleading requirements, so that the prior situation where anyone could make whatever fanciful claims in Court, and cases would basically have to go to trial or settle, is now beginning to be reined in. A number of Courts have ruled that the 'making available' allegation of infringement is no longer operative, and the MPAA and RIAA have very little alternative strategy.
So i play the world's smallest violin. Whether or not there are Record Companies, music will be made because artists are driven to express themselves and the public will reward qualified (and sometimes unqualified) artistic expression. The Republic won't fall even if the RIAA and MPAA go the way of buggy whip makers.

119 Catttt  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:58:57pm

Lol. PIMF. I'm correcting an incorrect correction.

120 snowcrash  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 5:00:37pm

re: #116 Catttt
I think its about BitTorrent technonlogy.

121 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 5:03:38pm
122 Roentgen  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 5:06:21pm

re: #118 eaglewingz08

Agree. And while "the republic won't fail" if these dinosaurs collapse, in the case of the recording industry, music-lovers, musicians, and the average Joe will all be shortchanged.

123 Catttt  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 5:07:19pm

re: #120 snowcrash

I think its about BitTorrent technonlogy.

Yeah. I linked to the pic of the guy who coded it.

There was sharing software before, but Bram Cohen (on the left, hee hee) made it much better by using distributed group downloading. This means one file can download in parts from multiple sources. Makes it faster, and the sources can log on and off without the download stopping. Easy concept, but I'm pretty sure no one did it before Mr. Cohen.

The same activity occurred before, but BitTorrent made it better (if you use P2P) and worse (if you are RIAA et al).

124 Catttt  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 5:07:55pm

re: #121 buzzsawmonkey

Didn't mean to insult you--running late, doing 3 things at once, trying to beat sundown--and so if I overstepped in some way, my apologies.

I only skimmed your post, for that reason. I'll try and revisit it Sunday. I have to go now.

Have a good Shabbat. :D

125 Catttt  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 5:12:53pm

re: #122 Roentgen

Agree. And while "the republic won't fail" if these dinosaurs collapse, in the case of the recording industry, music-lovers, musicians, and the average Joe will all be shortchanged.

I'm sure Charles and other pro musicians and artists know more about this than I do, but based on what I know of human nature, the MPAA/RIAA or whoever fight like weasels for their corporate bottom line. Now, I'm all for that, but I think they are doing it stupidly.

Part of having a good corporation is treating your employees well. The artists should be protected, not ripped off. The corporation has every right to do everything they can. I just don't think taking a single mother of two to court and twisting the law around her neck will do it.

I think they are between a rock and a hard place and are lashing out at the easy prey.

126 George guy  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 5:40:36pm

Here's how a next-generation film studio can coexist with the Internet, specifically the problematic technologies of high-bandwidth connections and cheap recording media.

* Make the audience into co-producer. Put a list of proposed projects up for a vote, and take the top— however many is feasible, to start on production. For those that make it, sell DVD preorders and merchandise to cover at least part of the cost of production. In theory, this should reduce the number of flops while still maintaining a supply of fresh material.
* Plan from the beginning to release the movie for free download (perhaps with some conditions like for private use only), scheduled some suitable amount of time after the movie has played out in the theaters. The DVDs would be shipped at the same time. Those who paid for them will be able to feel good about having supported the film, and possibly get some bonus features if they ordered the special edition. I do not believe the number of people who choose to pay will be substantially different under this model because current technology and inefficient prosecution has already effectively transformed the mainstream entertainment business into an honor system.
* Since after a predetermined time the movie will be free in most respects that would concern a typical viewer, there would be no need to hire lawyers to protect the intellectual property, except in whatever cases still apply-- and that would exclude almost all of what the typical movie downloading person would do with it. Most likely, that would require fewer lawyers, saving money.

127 Hard Right  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 5:45:49pm

Buzz, saying that because they can't prove they paid for it as grounds for punishment is pure bullsh*t. I can't believe you take such a position. It's inexcusable.

Perhaps you'll see the light per Cattt's post. As Cattt pointed out, they want to find you guilty because someone could have or could possibly upload it from you!
Someone could upload that Windows program from you-Patent infringement! Pay up.
See the problem here?
I'm all for protecting patent rights, but this is blatently unfair and outrageous. Declaring someone guilty despite being unable to show they did anything wrong is as unfair and un-American as it gets. It also potentially opens the door to a legal nightmare.
The MPAA needs get off it's ass and find a way to deal with this and not insist someone is guilty simply because they say so. This isn't about taking sides or protecting the "little guy". It's about doing what's right. The MPAA's "answer" is as wrong as it gets.

128 Kenneth  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 6:00:14pm

Say...Charles,

I was thinking, you infringed my copyright on that green football thing,... you see, I had a green football once... please pay up $150,000.

No, I don't need to prove it, as that would be "pernicious".

Thanks.

Canadian currency, if you please.

129 Egfrow  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 6:00:59pm

Charles,

Don't worry, they'll be coming after bloggers soon for stealing news revenue away from the MSM.

130 Dr. Shalit  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 6:02:11pm

re: #3 seekeroftruth

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
I am all for protecting copyright material, but this is the wrong way to go about it.

"Seeker" -

Like "DOH" - Digital Technology does allow artists to be "ripped off" in a manner that I was unable to accomplish back in the 1970's when I was a "PIRATE" - pre "Phonogram", by the way so WAY beyond statutes of limitation. Technology is better, the law is he same. We are not speaking of "Enemy Combatants" - we are talking about Garden Variety American Thieves. Go from there.

-S-

131 Kenneth  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 6:08:43pm

If media producers want to protect their copy right, they need to better protect their content.

If I bake a batch of cookies and leave them on a tray by the side of the road with a sign saying, "Cookies 25c each" I should not be surprised if some of my cookies are stolen. And it makes no sense to expect everybody who travels by that road pay me money just in case they might have stolen my cookies.

132 shiplord kirel  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 6:19:49pm

Hey, are uncool concepts like due process and burden of proof cramping your style? Just throw them out!

The entertainment industry's own scumbag lawyers have no trouble at all understanding that the media-industrial complex is an unelected shadow government, able to junk common law and constitutional standards on a whim.
Why are the groveling subjects of this self-appointed plutocracy so reluctant to see the truth?

133 Mashiki  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 7:04:09pm

Big surprise, I see the rise of darknets here in the America's coming into existence the harder things like this are pushed with no thought given to the general public. And while I know they're big in Asia and such now, most people have probably no idea of what it's like to have real broadband with no caps which will make this a reality. Another reason why net.neutrality is important.

134 kywrite  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 7:08:57pm

re: #20 schultzw

Give it a few years: the MPAA will be useless. Look at what's happened in the recording industry: Bands have begun to release albums for free internet download. Perhaps the MPAA should consider the changing nature of copywritten material.

Or perhaps the MPAA should consider sharing a little more profit with the bands they suck dry. I don't like piracy, but I think the MPAA are scum.

135 kywrite  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 7:14:20pm

re: #51 loppyd

Crazy.

We think you'r stealing so we're going to sue?

No, sick:

"You purposely left your files set up so people could copy them, so we're going to sue whether anyone took advantage of them or not."

On the same grounds, you could sue libraries. But with libraries, you can tell who checked out the books.

Or you could sue second-hand media stores for a share of the profits, citing ownership of copyright.

It's just dumb.

136 looking closely  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 7:33:58pm

I think this is a bit of a tempest in a teacup.

The fact that the recording companies are ASKING that any *potential* infringement be treated as an ACTUAL infringement doesn't mean they will get what they are asking for. More likely than not, that argument will be dismissed quickly.

As to the musicians being ripped off by downloading, that's certainly true, though my understanding is that most of the money is made from live performances, not from selling records, and this has been true long before there was a Napster or a Bittorrent.

137 AZfederalist  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 8:05:49pm

All these "facts" they throw out about how much is lost to piracy is just so much BS. If they know that figure, they should know who is committing the piracy. Perhaps if they produced entertainment that people wanted to see, maybe they would have higher sales.

This is just the opening shot. After the dems (or if the dems) get a solid lock on government, watch them tack a "tax" of a few dollars on each hard drive sold to be paid to the RIAA and MPAA for the purpose of accounting for "piracy", just like they accomplished with the VHS taxes in the past.

Apparently, at least according to Nancy Sinatra, the artists don't get any money from this extortion.

138 Catttt  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 8:21:08pm

re: #136 looking closely

I think this is a bit of a tempest in a teacup.

The fact that the recording companies are ASKING that any *potential* infringement be treated as an ACTUAL infringement doesn't mean they will get what they are asking for. More likely than not, that argument will be dismissed quickly.

Logic would assume that. However, they already won a case in Minn. district court last October. The linked article mentions it - Jammie Thomas was convicted of merely having 24 songs in an accessible folder, and she was fined $220,000.

The judge pretty much, imho, knows he screwed up and may declare a mistrial. Tons of amicus curiae briefs supporting Ms. Thomas's side have been filed.

Here is another article on this: Jammie Thomas likely to get another day in court

139 Wendya  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 8:59:59pm

re: #6 mama winger

I don't understand. If someone sues you, isn't the burden of proof on them? Aren't people presumed innocent until evidence is shown of guilt?

Never had an IRS audit, I presume?

140 Dasher  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 10:00:57pm

One thing that really bugs me is a holder of a patent basically has control of in invention for 17 years. But copyright are now good for 70 years. Why? 70 years is absurd!

141 ErkWit  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 10:43:42pm

You know that movie that's been really big in the theaters lately? That one that's sold millions of tickets? Yeah, I wrote the script for that. Unfortunately I don't have proof because my hard drive crashed (technology these days! sheesh!) but fortunately the MPAA says I don't need any proof!
I expect my millions of dollars to come any day now.

142 jenv  Sat, Jun 21, 2008 3:37:30am

re: #140 Dasher

One thing that really bugs me is a holder of a patent basically has control of in invention for 17 years. But copyright are now good for 70 years. Why? 70 years is absurd!


It's the "Disney effect". Every time Disney's properties (Mickey Mouse, Snow White, etc) come near their copyright expiration date Disney lobbies Congress to extend it.

143 Former Belgian  Sat, Jun 21, 2008 6:46:01am

I think we're seeing the concept of "creative destruction" in action:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Right as RIAA and MPAA are getting ever more hysterical, a number of creative approaches to generating revenue in the digital age are being developed.

Consider digital bookselling. The only publisher that does not use ANY form of DRM on their books appears to be Baen --- yet they're the only ones making good money (with the possible exception of Amazon's Kindle store, which generates revenue from selling dedicated hardware). Some of the things they do:
* in long book series, they offer the first (sometimes also the second) volume for free download via the Baen Free Library, then when you're hooked, go buy the rest.
* for their more popular authors, they've started selling unedited, unproofed Advance Reader Copies half a year in advance of release, at three times the price --- for people who absolutely want to be the first to read the new David Weber, John Ringo,...
One thing that helps: ebooks are small enough that once you buy, you have the item on your hard disk (and from there onto your Palm, iLiad, or whatever handheld device you use) within seconds, rather than spend hours hunting down an illegal copy. People WILL pay good money for time and convenience.

Jerry Pournelle, on the other hand, is starting to work on a "direct to readers" subscription model. I can see bands doing this: "we'll start working on our next album if x fans each send us y money, in exchange for which they'll get an advance copy of the release".

We're going to see some interesting business models developed.

Re: "corporatism" and Democrats: Jonah Goldberg makes a VERY persuasive case in his book (for those who hadn't yet figured this out for themselves) that BIG businesses is not necessarily averse to government intervention/Dem economic policies. Among other things, compliance costs associated with various Dem regulation policies are much more easily borne by them than by their smaller competitors, raising the access threshold for new competition and helping them muscle existing smaller competitors out of the market.

144 Ann NY  Sat, Jun 21, 2008 6:58:46am

re: #79 Roentgen

More interesting to me is the quagmire the music industry now finds itself in. CD sales have plummeted, with legit digital sales only recuperating a small fraction of the revenue lost to illegal downloading and copying. Of course the record companies are partially at fault. They ignored the elephant in the living room until it was too late, and have done little more than play legal whack-a-mole with down-loaders that come up on their radar. Their business plan is collapsing and it's hard to feel sorry for them. Yet this is a vitally important business that brings to the marketplace something we will always need: music. And no matter how you feel about these companies, they are responsible for bringing music to life by seeking out and supporting new talent that could not make it without the company's initial support.
If they had has some insight, they could have beaten Napster and the other services to the punch, and presented the public with a Superior product. Instead, they try and play catch-up, clinging to their CD's and attorneys.
Performers that already have made money can offer their music cheaply of even for free on-line, but that only makes it harder for the new stuff to get going.

Exactly. You would think, however, that the movie industry would learn from that mistake and plan things out better, but they won't.

145 Ann NY  Sat, Jun 21, 2008 7:23:32am
Re: "corporatism" and Democrats: Jonah Goldberg makes a VERY persuasive case in his book (for those who hadn't yet figured this out for themselves) that BIG businesses is not necessarily averse to government intervention/Dem economic policies. Among other things, compliance costs associated with various Dem regulation policies are much more easily borne by them than by their smaller competitors, raising the access threshold for new competition and helping them muscle existing smaller competitors out of the market.

A good example of that is GM and Ford supporting socialized medicine. They would rather have the taxpayer fund the most expensive part of their pension plans.

146 William Teach  Sat, Jun 21, 2008 8:28:20am

The MPAA is showing that they are clueless to today's technology. Most copyright infringements are going to involve copying a disk to another disk, which will not be the correct brand, will not have the correct stamping, and will not have the correct box, etc, and so on.

Welcome to the 21st century, MPAA!

147 Xenobyte  Sat, Jun 21, 2008 11:29:23pm

Both MPAA and RIAA are using the morally right base of fair compensation to push agendas that has nothing to do with paying anybody else but themselves. It's all about control and profit, not poor staving artists. They're using this to push for legislation that allow them monopolies and unlimited control of their products even after we purchase them. In Europe their counterparts have succeeded in getting EU to pass a law (info-soc) that's supposed to curb piracy but whose only real-life application has been to put an end to parallel imports so that music and film that isn't released locally only can be purchased privately (during travels or over the net), not at the local shops. This means that the shops suffer (less merchandise) and as people have a harder time getting the goods, also the 'poor staving artists' suffer because less stuff is sold. The result is ironically more internet piracy due to lack of availability... But to the European MPAA and RIAA counterparts all that matter is that they control 100% the availability of their products.

They have also tried - unsuccessfully - to get access to ISP customer data without warrants or using mass 'john-doe' style warrants. Their 'evidence' is usually screenshots they've made themselves (!) and we have yet to see a single case in court based on this flimsy garbage. It takes seconds to fake a screenshot and there's no neutral third party present when they supposedly grab them honestly. So in reality they are also asking for money without evidence here in Europe...

148 Albigensian  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 9:29:18am

"More interesting to me is the quagmire the music industry now finds itself in ..."

Actually, RIAA and MPAA appear to have two plans to recover/guarantee their revenue streams. These are:

Plan A: Migrate the customer to more secure media/ more secure file formats. To make this work, they will need legislation to mandate effective DRM in all computers and playback devices. At a minimum, all "analog holes" must be removed.

Plan B: Should Plan A fail, obtain legislative relief by mandating "royalty" payments on all media, and all devices that may be used to view copyrighted material (e.g., a few $$$ per megabyte of memory in all devices that use digital memory, plus "royalties" on stand-alone discs, memory cards, flash drives, etc.).

Plan A takes consumers back to 1962 or so-- before the Philips audio cassette made the creation of private, non-commercial copies practical. If you want to play something at home, in a vehicle, and in a portable device then you'll have to pay for three licenses. And, the mandated DRM is likely to handicap legitimate uses of the hardware that you supposedly own.

But Plan B is even worse, as it forces citizens to pay for "speech" that they may not care for, and may actively disagree with. It is essentially a private tax, and, if you think entertainers are arrogant now, imagine how arrogant they'd be if they knew you'd have no choice but to pay for their "product" even if you didn't actually choose to buy it.

149 syncrodude  Tue, Jun 24, 2008 6:49:42am

The MPAA is losing it's stranglehold on the music business on two fronts. First of all, the consumer side, which is well established in the public arena. What is not so obvious is the control of the content creators, I.E. the musicians themselves. In the past, the record companies controlled the studios to record the music, the advertising chains, and the distribution chains. If a musician wanted to be heard, it was his or her aspiration to get a recording contract with a record company. That was the only path to stardom. Today, technology and the internet have wiped out this monopolistic hold the recording industry had. First off, the studio. Today it is possible to put together a home recording studio whereby a song can be recorded that rivals the quality of a "professional studio." Granted, you are not going to have the grand luxury of the professional studio, but you will be able to create a highly marketable product. The cost of setting one of these up can be as low as a few hundred dollars. An investment of $1000 will get everything you need. Anyone motivated can save that. Part two is the advertising. Social networking sites provide the vehicle for this. There exists vast networks of people who are interested in music, and the home spun music is their choice of music. Just log on to Facebook or Myspace. There are thousands of musicians here with their music, and most of it rivals the big boys. And the networking can spread news of a new cool band faster than lightning. This social networking also takes care of the distribution aspect. Basically, there is no effort in distribution, it self distributing. All an artist has to do is make it available, and they will come. Cost: zero dollars. In the old days, it took huge MFG facilities to pound out physical media, which had to be financed, fabricated,packaged, and transported. All of that, gone. Out of the MPAA's reach. The monopoly hold they had, vanished. They are fighting for their lives as hard and as desperately as they can.

IMHO, this means that the nature of music is going to evolve again, backwards. In the early days of music, it was up to an individual to create and produce the music that he or she felt on the inside. And if people liked it, they listened. But the recording companies corrupted this into a a demographically measured, calculated structure to have the fewest songs reach the most people in the most profitable way possible. Superheroes were created out of the bands with huge marketing campaigns and payola handed out to radio stations to hype the latest fad band. Sales would be high for awhile, but would eventually taper off. One this happened, the fad band would be kicked out, the touring jet would be repainted with the next band logo, and a new crop of superstars forced upon us with the same demographically predetermined music. Today, we are going to see a reverting back to where a musician can record his or her music as they feel it. As they want to do it. And it will be published where anyone can get to it. What this will mean however, is getting fantastically rich with your music most likely will never happen. Instead of a few bands with millions of sales, we will have 1000's of bands with a few thousand fans each. But there will be the few who stand out who will get the mega fan base on the internet. But most of the home musicians are not motivated by the lure of riches. They want to make music.


This entry has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

log in
Name:
Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? My Account Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► LGF Hits

► Slideshows

► Resources

► Never Forget

► Statistics

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

► News/Opinion

Free Shipping  and up to 30% savings on new Textbooks
More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

Banned in dubai.


Save $5 off $50 at Kmart with code KMART5OFF50