Comments on: Real threat to online music:

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:43:00 +0000

Sorry to be a broken record, but this is pretty witty and should be copied to your elected representative. These BLOGS are full of people who share relatively similar viewpoints, but parliaments seem to only be hearing from the dinosaurs.

Russell McOrmond – http://digital-copyright.ca/

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 20 Apr 2005 06:54:07 +0000

SHHHHH!!!!

YOU’RE MAKING TOO MUCH NOISE!

I’LL HAVE TO LEVY A FINE ON YOU FOR THAT!

(CAPS intended.)

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 20 Apr 2005 04:58:49 +0000

I still have a hard time believing that anyone buys that files shared over p2p networks are causing loss of money. It is nothing but free advertisement for them and many of the studies have reflected that p2p does nothing to diminish sales. Since no money changes hands there is no monetary benefit and no sales tax or other charges to be held. Due to the lack of quality of such files, there is no way that the music majors are in anyway threatened by such other than by their own greed.

No one has yet to prove that a download is the equivalent of a lost sales. I suspect that folks would not buy to try for the largest precentage, having been ripped off so much already by the music majors with the dropping of singles and attempting to force customers to buy the album when all they wanted was that one good song without the rest of the filler added to increase the price. For the most part, DRM and anticopy has only made the music product customer unfriendly in both use and in owning something he has purchased. Now majors want downloan to become the standard of purchase. Well, renting isn’t owning so why spend the money for something that isn’t yours at an overinflated price? Not this one and certainly I want no part of DRM.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 20 Apr 2005 04:09:29 +0000

Yea right… If anyone is losing money because of 29 canadian file sharers, its certainly NOT the canadian music artists! XDXD

I can’t believe thats what they are being accused of! =P

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 20 Apr 2005 03:28:56 +0000

I’m in the midst of applying for a copyright on internet silence. Any website that features silence as a part of it’s content will have to pay ME 15% of it’s gross revenue. My copyright also contains a “derivative works” provision that empowers me to collect a 5% tarriff on sites that feature silent passages in-between their sound content. The real beauty of this copyright is that any non-copyright sound used on any site is considered to be silence for the purposes of this copyright.

In the spirit of fairness I am making DRM protected silence available to webmasters at very reasonable licensing rates. Compliance is easy, and infringers will be dealt with in the most severe manor allowed by law. Remember, including silence on your website without paying is a crime.

Sorry Jon, but your site contains silence all over it. I’m going to have to start billing you as soon as my copyright application process is complete. My friends in congress are already drafting a bill making it illegal to add sound to your site with the purpose of avoiding paying the silence tarriff, so don’t even think about it.

http://www.silentplunder.com/