Whaddya mean “today?”
We’uns have a long-standing tradition of the “dangerous other”: if it wasn’t “redskins” ripe for the killin’ out on the frontier, it was the “Yellow Peril” posed by Chinese immigrants, or the Irish, or ‘darkies’ or etc. etc.

The “War on terror” is nothing but “Cold war 2″, because if we didn’t have some kind of chronic “crisis” going on, people might actually start noticing that those at the top of the sociopolitical hierarchies (corporate/governmental/religious etc.) were worthless jackoffs.

heh,

What about this statement ISN’T familiar sounding ?
From suicide bombers to seekrit muslims, you just described
the cowering pansies of the USA today.

This is what bothers me, Y’know?

1. When are we — those of us who are supposedly so tuned in to the cultural vibe — going to stop taking the “mainstream media” seriously? Fuck the MSM; they’re good for exactly TWO things: entertainment (South Park, for example) and ridicule. Nobody takes them seriously, except for people from non-computer-using demographics (my 80 year old Grandmother, for example.)

2. Even totalitarians know that the “total state” is impossible. Even if they *did* develop some kind of magical ultimate compliance-tool, they’d *have* to continuously invent ‘enemies’ and ‘crises’ in order to justify their “power”: why else do you think the history of every totalitarian regime (from the medieval Catholic church right up to the Khmer Rouge) is an endless catalog of witch-hunts?

Power NEEDS “subersives”, and those in ‘power’ know this FULL WELL:

The Catholic church needed “heretics”
The Nazi’s NEEDED the Jews and other “non-Aryan” elements
The “Red Scare” of the 1950s *needed* ’subversives’ and “deviants”.

The thing of it is, those “in power” KNOW this full well, which is why some kind of magical ‘total compliance’ scenario would be the ultimate horror. Power *needs* rebels and subversives and suchlike.

What IS disheartening to me, is the fact that some people still continue to believe that those “in power” really ARE aiming for total compliance. Shit, Orwell even understood this: read 1984. The Party *created* “the Brotherhood”.

I realize that it’s tempting to believe that those “in power” actually *do* want some sort of human hive of total compliance, but really, think about it: “power” is about status, privilege, and coercion. There will *always* be “countercultures” even if those in power have to *create* them, or else there’s no way to justify the system’s rules or — more importantly — the privileges that GO with such social structures.

I’d really like to believe that but here’s the thing ….

The reason they lie so much in the msm is because they don’t give a fuck if we know they’re
lying. They ONLY care about the thoughts of those in actual power.

The Media companies and governments have the SAME problem …..

” t doesn’t take very long for somebody — or a lot of people — to call them out on their bullshit.
How long did the Lily Allen thing take, three days? ”

That’s the common problem.

If the government can’t hide things from us, then that’s a BIG problem.
Officials in power not only have cash incentives to give the labels what they want, but
they have their own dung being pulled into the sunlight, almost on a daily basis, to
deal with. Governments have GREAT reason to go along with what amounts to
economic censorship, and censorship via copyright.

The labels aren’t only giving them money, they’re showing them HOW to use the law the
labels craft to eliminate .. ummm inconvenient , tales from reaching too many eyes on
the web. It took three days to call lily allen on her bullshit, but almost EVERY TRACE OF IT
was removed almost immediately.

The’re learning fast.
All governments have a lot of reason to be willing to help.
They have NO reason to care if we know about it.

Thanks for the update on Riaadar (hadn’t searched for it for a while.)

The thing of it is, we’ve got them by the balls, and they know it (the corporate fatcats, that is.) Every time they try to do this propaganda shit (like Lily Allen’s blog crap), it doesn’t take very long for somebody — or a lot of people — to call them out on their bullshit.

How long did the Lily Allen thing take, three days? They can “debate” how much tongue-action to use when sucking corporate cock all they want. They can also buy themselves damn near any ‘law’ they want. What they CANNOT do is make people either *obey* said ‘law’ to any meaningful degree, or continue to take them seriously.

Lily Allen and every other “anti-p2p activist” are basically doing a bad Cartman imitation, standing their screaming about how people don’t “respect their authoritah!” Fuck ‘em. Nobody’s going to take it seriously, and they know it. That’s why they’re backing away from the “3 strikes” idiocy, because they know it’s impossible to do, won’t make a damn bit of difference against p2p ‘piracy’, but WILL piss a lot of people off really badly.

The only “leverage” any of the have, ultimately, is if *we* take them seriously.

You’re here, aren’t you ?
You’ve been here almost as long as I have in fact.
You contradict you’re own assertion merely by commenting.

If you go away, then just maybe nobody will be here.

@RW: The 12 comments on this article seem to contradict that assertion.

It was, and still is, p2pnet, and it’s called, oddly enough, http://www.p2pnet.net/riaa labels.html . But it’s probably quite out of date by now.

Cheers!

Other artists handled by 101 distribution are

Mark Knoppfler
Pearl Jam
Neil Diamond
Taylor Swift
Backstreet Boys

An RIAA label in disguise.

It shows Lily Allen’s album ‘22′ released by 101 Distribution as RIAA ‘Safe’,
and we all know Lily can’t go anywhere without a leash.

I would take anything distributed by 101 Distribution as an RIAA mole.

It’s not really compromise if only the Member labels and Corporate entities get to define the terms.
That seems to be the only way they’re willing ‘compromise’ .

That’s bullshit as well.

Still there. Still handy

http://www.riaaradar.com/

Not at all.
There used to be a website (I honestly don’t remember what it was, now, sorry) that listed members of the RIAA. Turned out that something like 80 to 90 percent of non-major labels were members.

The problem with organizations like the RIAA, BPI, BREIN, etc. is that they inevitably end up as mere front-groups for the same giant corporations, who end up dictating organizational policy.

RIAAdar? I honestly don’t recall the name, wish I did.
But the bottom line that I took away from that was, NO label — or artist — who becomes a member of these organizations can legitimately be considered “independent”, because they’ve thrown their support behind an organization dominated by major-label corporate policy decisions.

That’s where “first sale” comes in handy: if I *do* want to buy something polluted by RIAA membership, I kill two birds with one stone: I get a way better price, AND the ‘labels’ don’t get shit.

But my whole point was that we have to start calling “bullshit” on these corporate front organizations, and their idiotic lackeys.

It’s telling that they’re all into this “compromise” mode now: they know full well that they simply can not win — whatever new attempts at DRM they manage to invent are cracked within a few weeks, mass disconnections would just piss *everybody* off, etc. So since they’re completely and utterly powerless to stop the changing paradigm, now they start talking about “compromise”.

Sorry to sound paranoid, but corporate sockpuppets piss me off. ”

Not paranoid at all.
Completely correct, actually.

Most ‘independents’ are in fact owned by the labels, and that ownership is carefully hidden.
With research, those connections can be found.

Rihanna
Arctic Mokeys
Lilly Allen

These are only a few that have had label contracts for a long time, but were put in
‘virally’ through YouTube under the pretense that they were just ‘regular’ nobodies that
got ‘Lucky’ enough to get a contract.

When Rihanna appeared and pretended to be new my daughter had one of those NOW CD’s
that was about 3 years old, that had a Rihanna song on it. I pointed it out to my kids, and
the obvious question was asked ‘ why are they saying she’s new, then ? ‘ .

I answered them honestly …

Lying is better publicity then the truth. She was a failed has been that they still owned so
in order to spark interest they created this story, believing that she had pretty much been
forgotten about and no one would notice the lie.

The saddest part is that they were ( mostly ) right.

You’re not paranoid at all Henry.
Respectfully, you’re just late to the party.

Okay, let’s talk ‘compromise”:

1. Copyright terms reduced to a SINGLE, 5-year term, REQUIRING registration.
2. NO renewals, no term extensions, no fucking around with it IN ANY WAY — no buying your way OUT of the “public domain” part of the bargain, assholes.
3. Damages for infringement LOCKED at the maximum price per song if they’d been purchased from a digital download site.
4. NO fucking around with people’s connectivity.

If they REALLY think downloads represent “lost sales”, then it is only reasonable that they be paid EXACTLY what they would have gotten if someone would have “bought” the track. (Of course, considering that they ALSO want the privilege of “licensing” DRM-crippled bullshit, even these reasonable compromises won’t even be discussed.

Lily Allen and EVERYBODY ELSE involved with these “rights” organizations are corporate shills. Despite his rhetoric to the contrary, the CHORUSS guy is a corporate shill.

If there is even a HINT of allowing these people any further ‘voice’ in the debate, the major media corporations WILL have won. We’re seeing this Stateside, what with Obama allowing the Wall Street types a “voice” in his so-called “reforms”, and insurance/pharmaceutical corporations calling the shots on so-called health-care ‘reform’.

“Dialog” with corporate lobbyists (or their front groups) consists of exactly TWO words: “You win.”

Somebody needs to do a check on the ‘obscure’ artists listed above — methinks you’ll find that even the most ‘indie’ of them are REALLY from some tiny, out-of-the-way member of the RIAA, or one of it’s equivalents.

Sorry to sound paranoid, but corporate sockpuppets piss me off.

I’ll buy it.

“she was angry,”

I’ll buy it.

“she was foul-mouthed”

I’ll buy it.

“and she was eloquent.”

I don’t buy it.

what do you expect from a country that allows – and encourages – doctors to ignore doctor/patient confidentiality.

BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8276609.stm

“If a patient is diagnosed with a genetic disease doctors will be able to tell relatives, without consent.

Doctors will also be asked to decide whether they should breach confidentiality and pass on the patient’s details to the police if they suspect a crime has or will be committed.”