A mockery of reality
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- It’s only 8:50 am Pacific and already I’ve had three emails slagging me for RIAA, MPAA: A new beginning.
The emails complain the post is too realistic; that I didn’t make it clear right from the beginning it’s a spoof.
The whole point, however, is it’s a deliberate travesty — a mockery of the entertainment cartels.
Far from being realistic, it’s the exact opposite of the way things really are.
The movie studios, with Tweedledum Dan Glickman (right) as their mouthpiece, and record labels, fronted in the US by Tweedledee Mitch Bainwol, routinely treat their customers like dirt, calling them criminals and thieves and then expecting them to pay through the nose for endless streams of purient corporate crap.
The Big 4 record labels, Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG, are the worst offenders.
Through ‘trade’ associations such as the RIAA, CRIA, JRIA, etc, etc, they’re causing unimaginable pain and distress to thousands of very ordinary, very innocent, families around the world. And they’re doing it with the support of government administrations and the law agencies which are supposed to be protecting the citizens who fund them, not looking after corporate interests.
And if you think “unimaginable pain and distress” is an exaggeration, talk to any of the families whose lives have been thrown into turmoil by the depredations of the record labels.
The MPAA, owned by Time Warner, Viacom, Fox, Sony, NBC Universal and Disney, is close behind.
Their vicious attacks on the people who keep them in business aren’t about honesty or fair play. They’re about greed, pure and simple.
Justice isn’t merely blind. She’s deaf and dumb (as in moronic) as well.
‘punish … beyond any rational measure’
On Saturday I posted an item focusing on the Greubel family whose lawyer tied up a secret settlement deal with the RIAA.
I wound up by citing the Joel Tenenbaum case in which Big Music and its RIAA are, “seeking to punish him beyond any rational measure of the damage he allegedly caused,” says Harvard law professor Charles Nesson, going on »»»
They do this, not for the purpose of recovering compensation for actual damage caused by Joel`s individual action, nor for the primary purpose of deterring him from further copyright infringement, but for the ulterior purpose of creating an urban legend so frightening to children using computers, and so frightening to parents and teachers of students using computers, that they will somehow reverse the tide of the digital future.
The plaintiffs in the suit and the RIAA are abusing law and this court`s civil process. Because Joel Tenenbaum allegedly downloaded seven songs from a file-sharing network comprised of millions of his peers doing likewise, the plaintiffs have already imposed upon him process filling a docket sheet running back over years.
“The RIAA and the Big 4 are good at dancing in the shadows,” I said. “Let’s see how well they do under the full glare of public disclosure.
“Meanwhile, although the RIAA has subpoenaed some 40,000 or so men, women and children across America, it has yet to win even a single case.”
‘Dismissing me as a loony’
The Big 4 claim when you ‘buy’ one of their CDs or DVDs, you’re not really buying it: you’re merely licensing it from them and if you share the ‘product’ with someone else, you’re depriving them of a sale.
A Reader’s Write points to an elderly post by Freenet’s Ian Clarke.
It goes like this »»»
I was in the pub last night, and a guy asked me for a light for his cigarette. I suddenly realised that there was a demand here and money to be made, and so I agreed to light his cigarette for 10 pence, but I didn’t actually give him a light, I sold him a license to burn his cigarette. My fire-license restricted him from giving the light to anybody else, after all, that fire was my property.
He was drunk, and dismissing me as a loony, but accepted my fire (and by implication the licence which governed its use) anyway.
Of course in a matter of minutes I noticed a friend of his asking him for a light and to my outrage he gave his cigarette to his friend and pirated my fire!
I was furious, I started to make my way over to that side of the bar but to my added horror his friend then started to light other people’s cigarettes left, right, and centre!
Before long that whole side of the bar was enjoying MY fire without paying me anything. Enraged I went from person to person grabbing their cigarettes from their hands, throwing them to the ground, and stamping on them.
Strangely the door staff exhibited no respect for my property rights as they threw me out the door.
“How do you feel about things these day?” – I asked Clarke this morning, also wondering when he’d posted the piece.
“I’m not sure exactly when I wrote it, probably March or April 2000,” he said, but, “My attitudes towards copyright haven’t really changed over the years.”
Stay tuned.
Cheers!
Jon Newton – p2pnet
Did you enjoy this story, or find it interesting/useful? Help keep the posts coming by donating. No amount is too small. Cheers! And thanks.
News 1130 – , November , 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:45 am
One thing lost in all these suits is that what happens when someone is falsely identified. Claiming that “someone” at a computer download, so the person registered with the ISP becomes the target even if it is known that person didn’t do a thing. This then becomes a false filing or fraudulent court complaint. The person for whom the false claim is against then becomes a crime victim especially when the plaintiff knows the target was to wrong person. Now the target, defendant files with the victim witness program as a crime victim. The Victim witness program does nothing. They ignore the fact the court is used to file a complainant they knew to be false. The Justice Department as well ignores the crime victim. The crime victim then succumbs to the perpetrator signing a confidential agreement and the victim is barred from asking for charges. Because Justice has ignored this crime victim, then the next time that victim becomes a juror, that crime victim needs to ignore justice and exercise Jury Nullification. When enough juries have ignored justice, then justice will get the message and protect targets as required to do in the victim witness programs. If justice were on the side of law and order, these suits where a suit is based on mere suspicion would screech to a halt.