Violate Who?

Is the government going to break its own laws by intervening on copyright infringement?

logo
Ultimate Guitar
0

Well as I read my weekly journal "Information Week" published by the Hi-Tech publisher CMP and short excerpt in the "News Scan" column a sections called: 'Download music, kill your pc?'

Let me retype what it says for you to read:

"The chairman of the senate Judiciary Committee, Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, last week said he's interested in exploring ways to damage computers used to illegally swap song and movie files. The comments came during a hearing on copyright abuse. Hatch said he'd like the private sector to develop ways to disrupt file swappers without hurting their systems, but if that can't be done then he'd be in favor of destroying their computers."

Everyone should really read this article about how RIAA will be suing individual "file-swappers, or traffickers" (don't you like that use of "Traffickers" like were Columbian drug lords!) with damages and loss of profits. Read that article here.

Who is Orrin Hatch? Who is RIAA? Who made them Gods? These people who are pushing this copyright issue are not focused on more important matters that should take their attention. Forget about the millionaires; forget about Metallica and all of their cronies. Let's consider for a moment all the people who got robbed from "big-business" collapses/conspiracies like Enron, and Worldcomm - companies that we all know stole countless dollars, and then left the commoners, their own employees, in the cold! Which is more important here - the wellbeing of individuals and their families who have lost their jobs, income, and life savings, or a multi-million dollar corporation along with their multi-millionaire members complaining about a them suffering a tiny loss in profits?

What does RIAA expect to do with these multi-hundred thousands (if not million) dollar law suits against the common working man? Don't you think its kind of unfair and unjust that RIAA can afford to pay their team of a lawyers, which is most certainly a whole law firm fully equipped with Johnny-Cochran-wannabes $3,000/hour to take on these common folk? How is the common man supposed to defend him self with his average, lawyer against a multi-million dollar backed, money-hungry law team? What does RIAA think they will get from these people if they win? Money? That's doubtful. But isn't it funny how they will not sue you if you give a public apology, and in writing and then sign an affidavit swearing that you will never be involved into illegal copyrighted music.

RIAA itself is immature to think that they can beat the world in this activity. The government better be ready for the backlash of their decisions from PC owners if they allow for the use malware(s) to intentionally damage a personal computer. Since when was destruction of property legal? Since when did they think it could hold up in the Supreme Court? Does anyone else think that RIAA is lobbying these senators with bribe offers such as the great Yankee dollar? Maybe so because honestly, who else would give two cents about this subject.

I see things this way:

- More than half the world is starving right now. - More than 1/4 of the world is engaged in some war, civil or other. - More than 1/2 the populations of some countries have unemployment rates of 80% or more.

So in turn consider these points:

- Why is RIAA fighting the way the future? - Why are they engaging in this endless battle? - Why doesn't RIAA, instead of being half-brained and narrow-minded, learn to profit from the evolving technology instead of punishing every individual out there with a lawsuit?

Who knows - greed makes people do stupid things.

Tell me what you think. -- punk0mi

20 comments sorted by best / new / date

    Wickedcarny
    IM willing to pay for a cd i want, if it isnt more than $15. These days and in the past just about all the cds out are over that cost at the chain stores. If they lowered the prices, more people would want to buy cds. yet they will claim cd prices are so high b/c of file-swappers. Which is bullshit, because prices have always been jacked up and they are just out to get their greedy dirty hands on as much cash as possible
    Geldof the Grey
    lol at frigginjerk's message, he's just sore that he didn't get his article on the subject up before you... Anyway, I think you're wrong. At the end of the day, whether they're money hungry and greedy, the traffickers are still commiting a crime. CDs don't cost that much anyway, and besides, you're all guitarists, make your own goddam music! That said, I do think that the comanies are taking it out of hand a little. Maybe a compromise can be found... My idea is that the major record companies should release their own file sharing software. If you pay 30 (about $50?) for the software then they make some money and then they can advertise on the software like KaZaA. This is just my idea though, it probably has a bunch of holes in it that I don't see, however the companies can still release CDs and live appearances make a bunch of cash. Any comments?
    fender_boy81
    Great article. Think about this though.. when you buy a cd, how much money do you think the band gets? Maybe a dollar each cd? Also notice how the only bands who are complaining are the ones who own their own labels (cough cough.. metallica).
    Brand Nizzle182
    lol...who did die and make the RIAA god? FUCK THEM. they lose tho! they wont stop music downloading! they are all FUCKING IDIOTS. nice article
    skasolo
    is this bullshit going to reach australia? or is it just an american thing?
    RiffURheadOff
    erm...nickdaddy, you totally contradicted yourself. "The probelem with a lot downloaders is their contentness with having the burned copy of a cd instead of the actual album permenantly. i dont understand how someone can claim to like a musician if they arent willing to shell out a few bucks to support their creative enery." then you end with... "Dont get me wrong, burning a cd is a fine substitute for the real thing if you're a broke teen, who needs to scrap to buy the cds you want."
    patriot_73
    But, I still think it's better to download all the songs you want, but still buy the CD in order to provide that artisit/band enough money to make other albums for you to enjoy...
    perfec_circl
    The RIAA shouldn't be the spokepeople for all the artists out there. It's ridiculous how they sue the little 12 year old girl that's downloading good charlottes new single.
    Encore_God
    Some good points raised, they make logical sense. And indeed, who are the RIAA all of sudden? Anyway, music 'piracy' has happened ever since they invented tape to tape or vinyl to tape or whatever. It will never stop...
    anyonelistnin??
    I don't see underground bands such as The Unseen or p.o.h. going "hey world *** you! I want my goddamn money!". I see corporate pigs trying to *** everyone outta their money so they justify what they do. and everyone is right "music-piracy" is older then a lot of us. so punk0mi, my man (or woman) you got yourself a ticket for the chair! or a corporation suing you! well...that is when all the "music-pirates" have no money and the RIAA come looking for more victims. nice article.
    outtatune
    Great points in that article, it's all too true. I admit that I download music a fair bit but if I like something a lot then I'll go buy the CD. The internet has been a great way for a lot of unknown artists get their sound out there. Plus, piracy is never going to end. As long as there is vinyl, cassette tapes, cds, mini-discs and whatever else is out there, there will be piracy.
    KeviePie04
    this article had some good points. but i don't download a ton of songs though, i only download em to get a sample of stuff, not to get the entire cd for free. that seems a little greedy to me.
    guitar36
    Good articule and good points. Its to bad this whole thing is turning into such a big deal. Its like music is turning into one big money ordeal when people really forget why music is here in the first place. Sure people have to make money but its just being greedy now.
    nickdaddy
    The probelem with a lot downloaders is their contentness with having the burned copy of a cd instead of the actual album permenantly. i dont understand how someone can claim to like a musician if they arent willing to shell out a few bucks to support their creative enery. Yes all the major labels chose to pay millions for an out of court settlement instead of fighting a legal battle over colluding to keep the prices of cds artificially high, but you have to remember that behind the man stands a musician that you enjoy. To avoid overpriced cds, id recommend shopping around at used cd stores where you can find a lot of great albums for 5 bucks or less. good ones will usually cost 8-10 but its better than spending 16 bucks for the same thing at sam goody. Downloading to sample an artist before you buy an album is something i completely support. Dont get me wrong, burning a cd is a fine substitute for the real thing if you're a broke teen, who needs to scrap to buy the cds you want. peace.
    frigginjerk
    good points. well argued. i like it. i'll add that i don't think the RIAA fully intends to sue 60 million people individually. they are hoping that if they nail a couple hundred people for enough money, that KaZaa users will stop sharing songs out of fear. add that to the fact that it is technically a federal offense in the USA to participate in p2p sharing of copyrighted materials, and you might have some means to slow down the file trading. that's the RIAA's logic. it IS total bullshit for them to think that they can justify destroying people's computers because they used KaZaa. if their program took down even ONE computer that wasn't guilty, they could be sued into next week. if i had the money, i'd buy a junker computer, start downloading songs, and then rename my vital files to look like MP3's. when the government deleted those files by accident, i'd raise hell. thank god i live in Canada, where we don't worry about such petty things, and just let it be. although it's impossible to say right now wether the RIAA's decline in profit is a result of bad music or of file-sharing, i should point out that it's not a TINY loss of money. some of the major labels are on the verge of tanking althogether if the current trends keep up. if file sharing didn't (theoretically) make that much of a dent, they wouldn't be prusuing it as much as they are. i look at it this way. not many self-respecting artists would want to be on a major label anyway. the "underground" is becoming so popular these days that you can have just as much success, with half the BS, on a smaller label. the major labels are caught in a bad cycle. they started losing money with the advent of the internet. so they began releasing quick-fix albums, which are nothing more than over-marketed tripe, released in a big hurry. they never expected these artists to go any further than one-hit-wonder status, and they didn't. but then people started downloading entire albums, because they didn't want to pay 20 bucks for a one-hit-wonder's CD. and it continues. eventually, it'll all collapse on itself and start over.
    Apokryphos
    Very good article! Oh no I'm a traffiker...*** that, and *** the RIAA...I'll continue downloading a whole damn cd collection of songs, Fuck the Record companies and million dollar execs. ~ Casey
    Ratiug318
    anyway, i think file-sharing is wrong, when overused. i dont mind downloading a song to sample every once in a while, thats what i do. but some ppl download tons of songs, or even entire cd's. that gets me mad. but im kinda mixed feelings about it. i want the bands to get money, but i want the record companies to go bankrupt, cuz theyre all a bunch of shit holes
    jeremyrozario
    nice article, everything i have to mention has already been mentioned(LoLx), anw *** the RIAA