<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Where&#8217;s the copyright upgrade?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4727/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4727</link>
	<description>p2pnet.net - reader powered</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:11:09 -0300</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4727/comment-page-1#comment-13139</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2005 16:52:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-13139</guid>
		<description>it&#039;s about time the consumer was afforded more rights - rights of privacy, rights of possession (9/10 of the law and all that), human rights, civil rights, rights of dignity - not humility and shame, rights to share info and entertainment legally purchased or recorded, rights to freedom.

the current US and (most) world copyright laws are seriously out of date and should be scrapped. new ones should be drawn up to include all the rights of the consumer, and all that implies.

filesharing=&quot;infringement&quot; doesn&#039;t really make sense when the actual, physical creators of films - The Director&#039;s Guild of America - is not against dvd copying for private use - which would presume to include all possibilities of private use.

when films are shown on tv, edited and riddled with ads, we don&#039;t hear the director&#039;s or MPAA complaining.

when songs are played on the radio and the DJ talks over the beginning or ending - or cuts the song too early or re-edits it to fit the 3-minute format, there is no outrage from the RIAA or the so-called lip-synching, electronic voice-manipulated &quot;artists&quot;.

but what we do get are inferior remakes of hollywood classics; remixes of golden oldies by so-called untalented &quot;rap artists&quot; to include their crap (rap=crap) over the songs we really want to hear; and lisa marie presley making more and more money off re-releasing &quot;lost&quot; or remixed elvis songs.

the public as a whole doesn&#039;t want this crap or have to subsidize it. only the naive indoctrinated bubble-gum crowd whose maleable minds are owned by MTV and AOL Time Warner believe this is all there is.

years ago, hollywood tried to push colorizaion of b/w films onto the public. that failed because the consumers, directors, actors, and producers refused to accept it. and no-one went to court because of it.

civil disobedience, in the form of filesharing and copying/sharing, continuing to flex the might of our own will and dollar are one way to force change in the direction of the consumers&#039; freedoms of speech, choice, and use of legally purchased items.

the customer is always right. full stop.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>it&#8217;s about time the consumer was afforded more rights &#8211; rights of privacy, rights of possession (9/10 of the law and all that), human rights, civil rights, rights of dignity &#8211; not humility and shame, rights to share info and entertainment legally purchased or recorded, rights to freedom.</p>
<p>the current US and (most) world copyright laws are seriously out of date and should be scrapped. new ones should be drawn up to include all the rights of the consumer, and all that implies.</p>
<p>filesharing=&#8221;infringement&#8221; doesn&#8217;t really make sense when the actual, physical creators of films &#8211; The Director&#8217;s Guild of America &#8211; is not against dvd copying for private use &#8211; which would presume to include all possibilities of private use.</p>
<p>when films are shown on tv, edited and riddled with ads, we don&#8217;t hear the director&#8217;s or MPAA complaining.</p>
<p>when songs are played on the radio and the DJ talks over the beginning or ending &#8211; or cuts the song too early or re-edits it to fit the 3-minute format, there is no outrage from the RIAA or the so-called lip-synching, electronic voice-manipulated &#8220;artists&#8221;.</p>
<p>but what we do get are inferior remakes of hollywood classics; remixes of golden oldies by so-called untalented &#8220;rap artists&#8221; to include their crap (rap=crap) over the songs we really want to hear; and lisa marie presley making more and more money off re-releasing &#8220;lost&#8221; or remixed elvis songs.</p>
<p>the public as a whole doesn&#8217;t want this crap or have to subsidize it. only the naive indoctrinated bubble-gum crowd whose maleable minds are owned by MTV and AOL Time Warner believe this is all there is.</p>
<p>years ago, hollywood tried to push colorizaion of b/w films onto the public. that failed because the consumers, directors, actors, and producers refused to accept it. and no-one went to court because of it.</p>
<p>civil disobedience, in the form of filesharing and copying/sharing, continuing to flex the might of our own will and dollar are one way to force change in the direction of the consumers&#8217; freedoms of speech, choice, and use of legally purchased items.</p>
<p>the customer is always right. full stop.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>


