ZZzzz - Britney, Sting to Whine In "Anti-Piracy" TV Ads

[JackSpratts]

By Sue Zeidler, Reuters

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Teen queen Britney Spears, the bubbly dancing spokesgirl for Pepsi, will soon be shilling again but on a more serious note in a commercial to warn people of the evils of online piracy.
Spears, rapper Nelly, hip-hop diva Missy Elliott and other pop stars will be featured in coming weeks in TV spots funded by the world's biggest record labels to educate people about illegal downloading of music, which the music industry blames for a protracted sales slump.
After falling more than 5 percent in 2001, CD shipments dropped another 7 percent in the first half of this year as illegal downloading of music persists at high levels.
Industry estimates show that more than 2.6 billion music files are downloaded illegally from the Internet each month, mainly through unlicensed "peer-to-peer" services.
"We want to hit fans with the message that downloading music illegally is, as Britney Spears explains in one of the spots, 'the same thing as going into a CD store and stealing the CD,"' said Hilary Rosen, chief executive officer of Recording Industry Assocation of America (RIAA), a trade group for the music industry.
http://www.forbes.com/business/newsw...rtr732100.html

for one thing, if you steal from a store the product is gone. if you just make a copy they still have it and can still sell it, so it's not "the same thing" - sorry britney. for another, recording and sharing music is not illegal, nor has it ever been. yet. further, the 90 or so "artists" featured in the spots like Eminem, Madonna, the Dixie Chicks, Missy Elliott, Elton John, Sting, Phil Collins, Luciano Pavarotti, Brian Wilson, Spears, and Natalie Cole etc. need to understand that their constituency is not the riaa or even the record companies but us, the general public. that for almost every recording artist in the world their living comes not from unit sales but from direct fan support at live events, that record sales have never buttered their bread.

fans have only so much patience and i wouldn't want to stake my livelihood on the ones i've pissed off.

- js.

[Mazer]

Well the super mega stars can get away with believing the "anti-piracy" propaganda because they've already made bank. When you're at the top of the charts you can't go anywhere but down, so if recording "artists" can get away with blaming their fading popularity on piracy then that's what they'll do. But I understand their sense of loyalty to the executives who made them.

[JohnDoe345]

I remember reading a post by someone on a different forum that related to this subject. They mentioned that any money that goes into helping artists like Britney have been polled together from records sells of other artists. The more unknowned artists with the same record labels get screwed while the record labels focus their spending on promoting guranteed money maker artists like Britney. So not only do your favorite non-popular artist get very little for their record sells, they get screwed a second time because their records sells aren't used to help promote themselves. There are hundreds of artists with record labels....and how many of them do you see get the same promotions as Britney? Let's face it, the recording industry is out to make money which sometimes helps artists but most of them get screwed over while they watch other artists get all the benefits.

Of course Britney is going to defend the recording industry because they have invested a lot of money into her and have most likely given her a lot perks. Let's just see what happens when she passes her prime and not be such a money maker as she is now. I don't believe she'll be happy with the lack of support she'll get from the same label that once prized her so much.

the 90 or so "artists" featured in the spots like Eminem, Madonna, the Dixie Chicks, Missy Elliott, Elton John, Sting, Phil Collins, Luciano Pavarotti, Brian Wilson, Spears, and Natalie Cole etc. need to understand that their constituency is not the riaa or even the record companies but us, the general public. that for almost every recording artist in the world their living comes not from unit sales but from direct fan support at live events, that record sales have never buttered their bread.

I completely agree JS Even if nobody pirated their music, record sells are pretty much a brick wall when it comes to continued revenue. You can see this from older artists who are past their prime but are still touring. They see very little record sells but still make money from their concerts. How many times have you seen people buy the same CD twice or more? Many fans actually go to concerts with the same playlist several times. To make matters worst, most artists don't produce that many great CD's so record sells isn't where it's at. Concerts and advertising revenues are their bread and butter. Both of which don't necessarily benefit from a record label. It's basically what they have always been doing, promoting themselves and playing any gig that they can get. If they want to create CD's then they can just cut the middle man(the recording industry) and just license a CD company to produce their records.

What all the fuss is about is that record labels are lossing revenue because CD's are their bread and butter. Once the artists realize that then they will finally see that record labels are no longer needed. Only the really big artists truely benefit from records labels, but this is something they can do themselves if they had a good manager.

[pod]

Originally posted by JackSpratts
for one thing, if you steal from a store the product is gone. if you just make a copy they still have it and can still sell it, so it's not "the same thing" - sorry britney.

Weeellll.... perhaps arguably, depends on the situation. If you download (ie make a copy) INSTEAD of buying, you might as well steal the CD. The product is still there, but the sale is not. It's still lost profit, where, under normal conditions, a CD would have been sold.

[zombywoof]

Have a Cigar


Come in here, dear boy, have a cigar. You're gonna go far,
fly high, you're never gonna die, you're gonna make it if you try;
they're gonna love you.
Well I've always had a deep respect, and I mean that most sincerely.
The band is just fantastic, that is really what I think.
Oh by the way, which one's Pink?
And did we tell you the name of the game, boy,
we call it Riding the Gravy Train.

We're just knocked out, we heard about the sell out.
You gotta get an album out, you owe it to the people.
We're so happy we can hardly count.
Everybody else is just green, have you seen the chart?
It's a helluva start, it could be made into a monster
if we all pull together as a team.
And did we tell you the name of the game, boy,
we call it Riding the Gravy Train.

[JackSpratts]

Originally posted by pod


Weeellll.... perhaps arguably, depends on the situation. If you download (ie make a copy) INSTEAD of buying, you might as well steal the CD. The product is still there, but the sale is not. It's still lost profit, where, under normal conditions, a CD would have been sold.

the difference is simple. copying is legal and always has been under fair use laws. stealing however is not. giving away copies to family & friends (or anyone) has always been legal. the latest copyright law and the us supreme court makes it abundantly clear. the only legal issue concerns digital realms. analog copies are perfectly legal while perfect digital copies are not under dmca. that's the law today. what are mp3s? oggs? wmas? perfect digital copies? absolutely not. so, according to the law, something you hear a lot about from the riaa, the dmca does not call sharing mp3s illegal which is the only place in us copyright law that even addresses the issue of private, not for profit copies, and that's why the riaa wants to change the law. that's why they want to make something now legal into something illegal. it's always easier if they argue the law already makes it illegal and they just want to clarify it. but it doesn't. the law does not concern itself with compressed files which means it's legal, and the statute is fully clear that sharing copied analog songs is also legal. we all have that specific right under us law and again, it says nothing about lossy files. don't buy into the riaas’ disinformation campaign. file sharing is legal.

i have downloaded songs, thousands of them, from the early years of rock and roll and beyond, some over fifty years old. i had years to buy them and i did not. i never would have. there are no lost sales in those downloads. who can say where "lost sales" are, i wouldn't want to try.

- js.

[JackSpratts]

Originally posted by JohnDoe345

What all the fuss is about is that record labels are lossing revenue because CD's are their bread and butter. Once the artists realize that then they will finally see that record labels are no longer needed. Only the really big artists truely benefit from records labels, but this is something they can do themselves if they had a good manager.

the point is excellent jd. there is nothing today a record company can do for an artist, from development to distribution, that the artist can't do for themselves, and better with less interference and more control.

this riaa fight has never been about artists but about a small group of mostly foreign owned media giants trying desperately to protect a corrupt and monopolistic hegemony. nothing else.



By LAURA M. HOLSON, NYT

WHEN it comes to musical styles, Britney Spears, Luciano Pavarotti and Sean Combs, lately known as P. Diddy, do not appear to have much in common. But in a series of advertisements that begin running today, they are joining with 86 other recording artists to speak out against unauthorized music file-sharing, claiming it threatens the livelihood of everyone from recording artists and writers to sound engineers and record-store clerks.

"Would you go into a CD store and steal a CD?" asks Ms. Spears in one commercial to be shown in coming weeks. "It's the exact same thing, so why do it?"

In a print ad, Shakira, the hip-swiveling Latin pop star, urges the public to just "Say no to piracy." And Mr. Combs — in a statement released by the Recording Industry Association of America, which is largely financing the multimillion-dollar campaign — pleads with consumers to "Put yourself in our shoes!"

The new campaign, which officially runs under the auspices of a coalition of music professionals called Music United for Strong Internet Copyright, was developed by Amster Yard, a division of the IPG Sports and Entertainment Group, which also represents the Recording Industry Association of America. It comes at a difficult time for the recording industry. Sales of CD's fell nearly 7 percent during the first half of this year, largely, the industry claims, because of Internet piracy and file-sharing.

The campaign breaks the same day as the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property begins hearings on piracy and the Internet. The recording industry has long been criticized for failing to assuage disillusioned consumers who want cheaper and more accessible music over the Internet. The Department of Justice, meanwhile, is investigating whether the paid on-line music sites developed by the record labels violate antitrust provisions by hampering smaller competitors.

The recording industry, too, has been criticized by artist rights groups, who complain that the industry's accounting rules favor the labels and that the standard seven-year recording contract is akin to indentured servitude. On Tuesday, in fact, representatives of the Recording Artists Coalition, which include the former Eagles singer Don Henley who is not included in the new campaign, were at a California State Senate hearing testifying about the industry's accounting practices. But mutual interests have brought them together for this campaign against file-swapping.

What will be interesting to watch, industry executives say, is whether consumers are alienated by a campaign that speaks of the travails of wealthy artists like Mr. Combs, who has some fans who are hard pressed to afford not only his shoes but also the suits and jackets he sells under his Sean John clothing line.

"This is not a campaign created to engender sympathy," said Hilary Rosen, chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America. "We are saying there is a significant problem and it is affecting us and it is illegal."

David Munns, the vice chairman of EMI Recorded Music, added, "There is a whole generation of people that don't know illegally swapping files is stealing."

Not everyone agrees that the most pressing problem facing the industry is theft. In a study released yesterday by KPMG, the tax and financial accounting firm, media companies were chided for spending too much time combating pirates instead of tackling the more difficult issue of finding new ways to profit by distributing music and movies online. And other critics say that the industry's poor performance in finding new artists that appeal to consumers is more responsible for the malaise than any threat from the Internet.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/26/business/26ADCO.html

- js.

[hda12]

there is nothing today a record company can do for an artist, from development to distribution, that the artist can't do for themselves, and better with less interference and more control.

A good point, Jack Spratts. But nothing will change if we, the consumer, do not act against this media comglomerates in the public discouse to. P2P is in svere danger, and this campaign is only the beginning of an braod offensive, wich can mean easily the end for all P2P networks. The next big step will be the prosecution of P2P-Users, which has been announced by an DoJ official and has already begun in Danmark.

A first step in a counterattac could be a massive consumer boycott-campaign agianst certain artists like Britney Spears, Shakira, etc. wich has announced their hostility to the internet.

[SA_Dave]

"This is not a campaign created to engender sympathy," said Hilary Rosen, chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America. "We are saying there is a significant problem and it is affecting us and it is illegal."

I've heard her say alot of really stupid things,but this must be the blondest!

Bring on those advertisements featuring starving , bedraggled artists dressed in rags! What's that you say Hilary? You can't convince them to do so, even if you pay them?

[RDixon]

"Make my bank account one more size..."
Must be really hard on her now that her fan base has grown up enough to realize she has no talent and no class.....

[Scyth]

Jack, you're quite wrong about US copyright law.

copying is legal and always has been under fair use laws.

Fair use only makes copying legal in very specific instances. MP3 sharing is most definitately not one of them.

giving away copies to family & friends (or anyone) has always been legal.

Of course this is correct but only because copyright law doesn't cover what you can do with copies. Actually making the copies may well be illegal.

the only legal issue concerns digital realms. analog copies are perfectly legal while perfect digital copies are not under dmca. that's the law today. what are mp3s? oggs? wmas? perfect digital copies? absolutely not.

The DMCA says nothing about analog or perfect digital copies. You're probably thinking of the Audio Home Recording Act, which makes legal copying for private use done using specific types of equipment (and also places a tariff on this equipment in order to compensate rightholders). No law specifically makes compressed digital copies illegal, they're simply not covered by exemptions granted for by the AHRA.

so, according to the law, something you hear a lot about from the riaa, the dmca does not call sharing mp3s illegal which is the only place in us copyright law that even addresses the issue of private, not for profit copies, and that's why the riaa wants to change the law.

The DMCA does call sharing mp3s (or any other violation non-profit of copyright law) a crime if a value of the mp3s shared over a 6 month period exceeds $1000. Also, the DMCA is not the only part of copyright law to address non-profit copying, it is merely the only part of copyright law to make such copying a criminal offense. It has always been a civil violation to make copies, even if not for profit, unless specifically exempted under fair use or the AHRA.

the law does not concern itself with compressed files which means it's legal, and the statute is fully clear that sharing copied analog songs is also legal.

The law does does concern itself with compressed files! It doesn't mention them specifically but they are covered by the general sections of copyright law that address all copying and distribution.

[pod]

Scyth, you're quite right.

I have to disagree with you, JS. It's time to stop beating this dead horse. Like Scyth said, Fair Use Law does not differentiate between perfect and analog copies. A copy is a copy. I think the biggest mistake people make along these lines is comparing P2P file sharing to giving a couple of copies to family and friends. This is incorrect on many levels. Fair Use applies in special circumstances. First of all, you are NOT allowed to make copies for family and friends. You ARE allowed to make limited copies (of tracks and in the form of compilations). You ARE allowed to make (unlimited?) copies for PERSONAL use (ie, for media backup, for use in car stereo, walkman, upstairs entertainment room, etc). And while I do not know the exact wording of Fair Use Law, I do know the spirit, and no where does it say you can make unlimited copies for friends, familly and half the known universe. Using this 'family and friends' argument shows either naivete, ignorance, or malicious intent to sidetrack legitimate debate. It's FUD, plain and simple.

No matter how much you'd like Fair Use to allow wide-open P2P file sharing of copyrighted material, it does not, and repeating it over and over will not make it so. The only thing it could possibly accomplish, is to push the RIAA and related interests to make the law crystal clear by outlawing all file sharing and non-explicitely allowed fair use, period (read: DRM).

[Shani]

i hope these ads dont air down under, but i have a bad feeling they will

Would you go into a CD store and steal a CD?" asks Ms. Spears in one commercial to be shown in coming weeks. "It's the exact same thing, so why do it?"

In a print ad, Shakira, the hip-swiveling Latin pop star, urges the public to just "Say no to piracy."

arg.. bleh.. that does serious damage to the 'say no to drugs' campaign.

[hda12]

The topics above, e.g.the legality of P2P-networks in which contry ever and the condemnations of opinions from some superstars like Shakira and Britney Spears had been dicussed ever and ever.
But we have to act now, or P2P will be defeated. We need a strog social movement, like the peace- or the antiglobalisation movement, which will defend the P2P networks.

[JackSpratts]

Originally posted by Scyth
Jack, you're quite wrong about US copyright law.

The space provided in a post rarely leaves room for the subtle differences inherent in U.S. and international copyright law, which happens to have some of the most confusing and convoluted statutes ever committed to ink. When I said that the copying and sharing of analog files is legal and then compared it to the DMCA I didn’t mean to suggest that that the dmca covered analog copies. Quite obviously the dmca covers digital works, as it grew out of the infamous Lehman green and white papers that proceeded it and as you correctly mentioned the copying exemption specifically noted is in the AHRA. (even the ahra of course covers digital copies, for instance the following from 1992 -

(1) A "digital audio copied recording" is a reproduction in a digital recording format of a digital musical recording, whether that reproduction is made directly from another digital musical recording or indirectly from a transmission.)

As for the legality of file sharing in a digital domain, again, within limits, there is nothing illegal about sharing mp3s (as long as conditions are met). I wasn’t aware the dmca included a provision that specifically mentioned mp3 and oggs, but I’m not a copyright attorney of course and some of these statutes go on for miles. As for value, determining it for an unknown, homemade mp3 is difficult, but I value them between five and 10 cents per ripped file. The labels are selling validated ones for 10 times the amount but that’s absurd on the face of it as some compilations cost more than the full definition CDs they came from. Still at 99 cents one could upload 2000 mp3s per year and escape even a rigorous interpretation of the dmca while at 10 cents, you could share 20,000 files a year and not be in violation. 10,000 files in a six month period is probably more uploads than the vast majority of system users attain, it’s over 50 a day, 7 days a week after all, making file sharing essentially legal for all practical purposes. There remain issues to resolve concerning public performances for instance. My position is that transmitting a file from my house to yours is a “private” performance much like a phone call and not a public performance. Record companies may beg to differ if it gives them an advantage. Make no mistake; copyright owners will walk away with everything if allowed. They were arguing that putting a copyrighted work in ram violated recording statutes which led to their bizarre interpretation that simply reading an ebook, watching a dvd or listening to music – all of course legally acquired – was in fact illegal if done on a computer because it was "recorded" into ram! It reminded me of the musicians union stories in the 1940s when stereo came out. They wanted to be paid twice, once for each speaker! No telling what they would have said about 5.1 Dolby surrounds...with farsighted guys like that in charge it's no wonder that union is all but gone. They did rethink their position after it was patiently pointed out home listeners would want to rehear their favorites in the new stereo medium, so the union orchestra members would indeed be working mightily re-recording new material.

Ultimately we're left with our own interpretations as no court has ruled on the copying provisions or even the basic constitutionality of the DMCA. I’m confident it will in time be struck down and today’s RIAA will come to be seen like yesterday's Musicians Union. At the end of the day the only court that counts is the U.S. Supreme court. The last word belongs squarely with them and pod that horse is very much alive. They weighed in once and clearly saying, “You can record, and you can share”. I find it difficult to foresee them overruling their own precedent. I got the message and so have millions of Americans.

- js.

[Mazer]

I think it's good to continue beating this dead horse because it's still squirming and trying to stand up.

The DMCA is such a big law with so many words that I'm sure they'll find a loophole that will allow them to shut file sharing down while we're finding loopholes that allow file sharing to persist. That's the real problem with the DMCA, it's too wordy and it reaches farther than it can see. Maybe it is illegal to share MP3's, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer either. I'm a law abiding citizen but I do believe in civil disobedience. If file sharing is illegal then it has gone way over the line of civil disobedience, file sharers are showing outright disregard for the law and they even brag that they break it. Now, for something as fickle as file sharing I don't think this kind of anarchy is particularly dangerous, but I don't necessarily want to live in a country where lawmakers make laws they know people disagree with. It's supposed to be a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" after all. If a law exists that 1) limits the natural rights of the people, 2) cannot be enforced in any reasonable way, and 3) incites the citizens to break it then it has no business being a law in the first place. Under those terms I think the DMCA has to go.

So I, for one, think the real battle has to happen in the courts and in congress to revert copyright law to its original form, that which protects creators for a limited amount of time. In its present form it protects distributors for an unlimited amount of time and it is an obvious detriment to creativity and the economy. A gaggle of movmentarians isn't going to initiate the kind of change that need to take place. Napsterites have never been the kind to march on the streets carrying signs and chanting; we know that there are better ways to impart our knowledge, and we can do it without getting bogged down it the technicalities of fair use and analog and lossy copies. The simplest message is probably the best one: file sharing may be illegal but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's wrong.

We're limited by the fact that only half of our benefactors support us. File sharing is good for musicians too but they don't know that. That's where most of the confusion begins, people listen to celebrities condemning the medium that has boosted their popularity, and condemning their own fans too. They're saying what they truly believe because that's what they get paid to do, and it's their right to say whatever they want no matter how ignorant they are. And people do take them seriously despite their lack of education. Some musicians do eventually learn but not until after people have stopped listening to them. Those that do stick up for themselves discover the small print in their contracts that remind them that the record company owns them for life; even if they wanted to distribute and promote their own records they wouldn't be allowed to. Those contracts extend to retailers too, promising to kill their businesses if they sell non-label music. So copyright law isn't the only weed that needs to be plucked, labor law and antitrust law also need to be amended in order for us to succeed. And the people who live under those laws don't want to change. What we have here is a failure to communicate, the surface dwellers can't hear us from underground.

Still, from underground we have direct access to the grass roots. We can't succeed if we play the role of gilded consumers who want something for free, because we're more than just consumers. We're more than just computer nerds and internet addicts, we're not the stereotypical losers living in dark basements. We're not all sheep, and we're not all wolves either. We all have real lives in the real world, those are the roles we should play, and that's how change begins. A hundred celebrities on TV can't compare to a hundred million neighbors and friends chatting in their homes and at work. When we talk about it online we're beating a dead horse, but outside of NU it is a new and misunderstood concept. When it's time to educate people about the music business and copyright law, piracy and sharing, creativity and contracts, the responsibility falls on us because we know. Even if we don't all agree, even if some of us vehemently oppose each other, this debate needs to get out into the open and the arguments need to be made again and again.

[JackSpratts]

Originally posted by Mazer
I think it's good to continue beating this dead horse because it's still squirming and trying to stand up.

me too mazer & i'm sure you'll get a kick out of this -

"One Buck Forty or Die" By John C. Dvorak

It's rampant.
The new P2P systems, such as KaZaA and Morpheus, have picked up where Napster left off, and blank CDs now outsell prerecorded discs. The trend is clear: concern not for the law but for economics. This happens with disruptive technologies. If you had a machine that could make a new Lexus for $1,000, then why would you buy one from Toyota for $50,000? Because you had a moral obligation?

You'd wonder why Toyota wouldn't use the same machine to make the car for $1,000. Where is the morality in keeping the price jacked up? Likewise, too many people are asking why they should buy a CD for $16 when they can copy one for 35 cents. We are a mercantile culture, and this is a pure cost/benefits analysis. It has nothing to do with laws. There are laws against public kissing in many cities, too. Who cares? It's about economics, plain and simple.

History.
Edison invented the cylinder phonograph in 1877, and he commercialized it as the Edison Phonograph in 1887. Curiously, the gramophone disc was invented by Emile Berliner the same year. In 1913, even Edison turned to the disc format. (The cylinder machine evolved into the Ediphone, a dictation device that remained popular for years.) The history of the music business is marked by such changes and dislocations.

The heyday of the 78-rpm disc was probably the 1930s, partly because of the emergence of electric recording using microphones in the mid-1920s, along with the popularity of the jukebox, which took over where the coin- operated player piano left off. It was a pay-for-play period. But over time, battles over performance rights, permissions to play discs over the radio, and musician labor strikes caused a slow evolution in the business. After World War II, this culminated in a format change, as Columbia introduced the 33 1/3 -rpm LP and RCA rolled out the 45-rpm single and EP. The format wars continued until the mid-1950s, when the 33 1/3- and 45- rpm formats became standard. Soon stereo sound was introduced. Pay for play began to die in the mid- sixties.

All the new technology had very little to do with music itself. It was about the business of distribution—the more distribution the better. Recorded music became a money machine, and by 1970 the market was flooded with music—most of it crummy. Soon the business became known as the "music industry." Factory-like. Soulless. Unsympathetic. Exploitive.

Price fixing.
The music industry began to act like a monopolist. With the advent of the CD, it found that it could continue to gouge its customers. While the industry lectures the public on illegal copying, it gets busted for price fixing. So much for the morality argument.

When Edison first released his prerecorded cylinders, they sold for $4 each. With mass production, he eventually brought the price down to 35 cents, nearly a 90 percent reduction. If the same ratio held true with $16 CDs, the cost of which has been perpetually propped up by price fixing, they would cost $1.40. Since it costs less than 25 cents to mass-produce a CD, $1.40 is reasonable and profitable.

Of course, the industry would need to adjust from extravagance and sloppiness to frugality and normality. Less Dom Perignon, for starters. And it's not as if record companies and artists won't make money. 45-rpm singles used to cost 50 cents each, and it was a big deal to sell a million of them. Elvis Presley led a good life, it seems to me, by leveraging his career with those old profit margins. Heck, he was giving away Cadillacs.

It's a matter of competition.
A manufactured CD for $1.40 can compete with a bootleg copy: Manufactured CDs generally play better and come with nice packages and liner notes. The industry can still make millions of dollars, just not billions. And many artists can go back to making money the old-fashioned way—by working harder and performing more. Things change, folks! The gravy train has left the station.

The U.S. government should not be corrupted by the Recording Industry Association of America and should instead do more about price fixing. And let's stop lecturing people about legality and morality. Students in particular are not moral reprobates, nor are they fools. They are pragmatists, and they stretch the rules along with their budgets. This is a crowd that worships the fake ID and is taught to question authority. So you're going to lecture them about copyrights? Give up. Rethink your business model. The problem will be solved.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,543415,00.asp

- js.

[SA_Dave]

Great post Mazer!

Originally posted by Mazer
So copyright law isn't the only weed that needs to be plucked, labor law and antitrust law also need to be amended in order for us to succeed.

Exactly! How is the RIAA's behaviour any different than that of Microsoft's? Microsoft continually buy out any threatening technologies and mould it for their own nefarious purposes. They also have a multi-billion dollar smear and publicity campaign going on, never mind their intimidation of retailers. Read more about their tactics here. The RIAA and MPAA are using and have used very similar tactics. It's not illegal to have a monopoly, but it is illegal to leverage that monopoly in order to put your competitors out of business!!

Hilary, Bill and Jack may as well be having a public threesome, as they are so obviously in bed together! What with Palladium and copy-protected CDs that are only readable in windows, would anyone be surprised if the BSA/MS/RIAA/MPAA united to form The Hitler That Never Was ™ ® © ?

[Mazer]

Well the difference between Microsoft and the music industry is that Microsoft is one single corporation and the music industry is five different companies. The federal trade commision can penalize those five companies (in a very limited way) for price fixing but since they are separate corporations antitrust laws do not apply to them, no matter how much they operate like a monopoly. (Even if they were one company they would be broken up and we'd be left with the same situation.) What needs to happen is each marketing department, shipping department, production department, recruiting department, and recording department from each company needs to be merged into separate corporations, that way no one company could recruit, record, manufacture, market, and distribute music by itself. When a monopoly is broken up it is usually reorganized in this way, but the law doesn't make any provisions for multi-monopolies like the the music industry. Basically the music business should look and act more like professional sports, with draft picks, franchises, even team competetion. Musicians should be rated not on the number of records they sell but on the number of seats they fill. The RIAA and MPAA could take lessons from the NFL and the NBA.

[Mazer]

Originally posted by SA_Dave
...would anyone be surprised if the BSA/MS/RIAA/MPAA united to form The Hitler That Never Was ™ ® ©?

What does any of this have to do with the Boy Scouts of America?