On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 21:51:57 -0400, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 18:04:27 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:03:33 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
>> > wrote:
>> >> ie, they think "if it's on the 'net, it's public domain".
>> >
>> > Do the lawyers know this?
>>
>> Given the number of lawsuits from MPAA, RIAA, IFPI, and other
>> intellectual property bodies, I bet they do know that people think
>> that.
> 
> People don't give a fuck.

Which is precisely the point.  People (in general) tend to care about one 
thing:  themselves.  Or rather, they don't think any further than the 
instant gratification they get from downloading a song rather than paying 
for it.

The artist not getting paid is not their problem.  In fact, the artist 
getting paid, a lot of times, is not because of piracy (though that 
certainly reduces the revenue stream to $0), but because of the 
moneygrubbing **AA-like organisations that keep 90% of the profits for 
themselves and pay the artist a pittance.....and then deduct "expenses" 
from it for things like "advertising" or "marketing" - you know, 
nonessential services that those bastard artists think is important so 
they might as well do it, but it's not coming out of the **AA's pockets.

I understand the **AA's reasons for fighting online piracy (it is 
ostensibly to cut off the supply for those who actually do make 
counterfeit CDs and DVDs; I saw a very interesting presentation by the 
general counsel of the RIAA a few years ago about this topic).

But in the context of "you're doing it wrong"...."YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!" 
- taking down someone who has nothing doesn't send a message other than 
you're a bunch of moneygrubbing lawyers who don't pay their artists. They 
should talk more about the physical media counterfeiters they've busted 
and make some noise about that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message