p2pnet news view | P2P | Music:- Okay, folks, I’ll admit it:

I have no sympathy whatsoever left for the opposition.

I simply cannot bring myself to be THAT stupid, that often.

Check out this link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/weekinreview/28streitfeld.html?_r=2&em=&pagewanted=all

Now, please realise something about the above: here’s an example where the fact that people are acting PERFECTLY “WITHIN THE LAW”, (not to mention, in an economically-sensible fashion), and we STILL hear whimpering from the “content-industry” and their lackeys.

Are you all FINALLY starting to “get” the fact that even when you act “legally”, the professional whiners of the various “content industries” STILL think you’re doing something wrong?

Or how ’bout THIS:

http://www.dmamusic.org/news/000198.php

I for one, am sick of the whining.  Anybody who’s read my last few posts knows I USED to be sympathetic to how scared and uncertain those involved in various “business models” really are, when confronted with the realities of the digital world.

But y’know what? No matter HOW sympathetic I may be, I cannot, in good conscience, fall in line behind the RIAA/MPAA/publishers when they’re being like this.

I can’t take Lars Ulrich seriously anymore, since he’s admitted (nine years late) to “pirating” his own album.  I stopped taking Sonny Bono seriously after his “Copyright is forever minus a day” quote.

I NEVER took Valenti seriously in the first place

Looky here, friends:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

Observe the graph very carefully.  Now, down at the one room log-cabin schoolhouse here in Possum Gulch (smirk) they taught us a little bit about how to read graphs and suchlike.  So, uhh — is it just me, or are copyright terms getting longer — and longer — and longer?

Why?

Why does something made now deserve a longer copyright term, than something created in 1790?

It sure as hell can’t be that they figure stuff will still be “profitable” 140 years from now, else why do they continue printing books?  For that matter — and I’ve raised this question before — why do ANYTHING, anymore?

Tell me something: how many books written even thirty years ago, have you read?  Bought any “Sheena Easton” albums lately?

So my next question is: considering how quickly the various “content industries” run through fads, where’s the “incentive” that keeps them lobbying for longer terms and a heavier jackboot, even as you’re reading this now?

Like I said, I don’t get it.

Unless …

(Nah, couldn’t be):

In a truly sane and just society, one where the “public domain” was still vibrant, Joe Satriani probably wouldn’t be able to put the bite on Coldplay because one of their songs has a vaguely-similar riff.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/05/coldplay-sued-for-plagiar_n_148676.html

(Sorry the link sucks, but in a way, it makes the point even more thoroughly, because thanks to our buddies at EMI — YOU CAN NO LONGER COMPARE THE SONGS IN QUESTION.

(And they wonder why we get annoyed.)

Oh yeah, and while we’re on the subject of “similar-sounding riffs”, here’s a few links for y’all to chew over:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dani_California

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_71j7X76og

htt://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Jane’s_Last_Dance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdTYcnUBADw

Please read the Wikipedia stuff, watch the videos, and ask yourself one question:  “Why isn’t Tom Petty suing the Peppers over this????!!!!”

Like I said, I don’t get it.  I mean, he — or more realistically, his corporate handlers — “own” every aspect of “Mary Jane’s last dance” for AT LEAST 95 years past Petty’s death.

So why aren’t we seeing a “peck of pickled (pilloried) Peppers”?

(Could it be that the “labels” are counting on the fact that most people have short attention spans and are also largely ignorant of how tortuously distorted copy’right’ law has become — THANKS TO THEM????)

I mean, it can’t be that, can it?  We always hear so much from them about the “rights of creators” and suchlike.  SURELY they wouldn’t see any advantage to making IP laws confusing, and almost impossible NOT to violate in some way…..WOULD they?

I honestly can’t help but ask these type of qestions.

Just curious, y’know. I really sincerely want to know how they expect us to take such blatantly absurd laws seriously — much less, passively accept the destruction of the best communications technology the world has ever seen, just so they can CONTINUE being like this.

I’m also curious to hear their reasoning as to why, when confronted with stuff like this on almost a daily basis, we shouldn’t start trying to learn more about these laws that are rapidly strangling everything in thei reach.

I mean, hey, come on now — if a law’s important enough to sue a DEAD GUY for violating it, then (to in the words of Encyclopedia Dramatica) it must be “serious bizzness!” (smirk)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/05/riaa_sues_the_dead/

(Is it just me, or does the above look kinda familiar?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthumous_execution

Well, y’all — back to the woodshed I go. 

Henry Emrich – p2pnet
[Ermich says he's, "just some guy," sometime musician, wannabe writer, sporadic blogger, and (hopefully) good-natured person.  He and his wife live in Pennsylvania with two cats, and, "entirely too many record albums".]

March, 2009

---

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.

This entry was posted on Saturday, March 7th, 2009 at 11:43 am and is filed under Music, P2P. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

HOME

Viewed 2268 times