Comments on: Judges labels RIAA claim ‘disingenuous’

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:16:50 +0000

“I believe this to be a false affirmation. Copyrights ultimately serve the interests of large corporations with extensive portfolios. They do little for the general populous.”

Well put. I would add that “copyright” it does little and nothing for many the creator of individual works, such as songwriters/composers.

As to why we hear so much worthless music on radio and at homes, at the bottom the reason is copyright law and the legal system that supports the law corporations in “corporation vs. people” cases.

Rafael Venegas
gvenegas.com

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:00:45 +0000

Notice the strange lack of reporting on the main stream media.

Very strange that really. Hay ho.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 02:27:33 +0000

I wish i was a lawyer so i could understand all the lingo.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:44:51 +0000

“[b]ecause copyright law ultimately serves the purpose of enriching the general public through access to creative works.”

I believe this to be a false affirmation. Copyrights ultimately serve the interests of large corporations with extensive portfolios. They do little for the general populous.

Of course the original intention was to propagate monopolies and prevent competition / innovation. This objective has been met and surpassed.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:44:56 +0000

Seems like the RIAA got their BUTT handed to them on a platter! I am glad.