Music Industry 'trying to hijack EU data laws' 147
sebFlyte writes "The recording industry is trying to hijack the EU's data retention directive, which is being brought in to fight terrorism, to try and get their copyright battles fought for them. As previously reported, the EU may be making copyright infringement a criminal offence, and the Creative Media Business Alliance is lobbying hard to stop the European laws on data retention being restricted to cover terrorism and organized crime (as is currently proposed). In essence, they want to be able to get police to search through newly extended records from ISPs to look for evidence of illegal filesharing. In the words of the executive director of the Open Rights group, 'the music industry's attempt to hijack this legislation is a travesty and a gross affront to civil liberties and human rights.'"
good news (Score:1)
hijacked (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:good news (Score:5, Interesting)
We've long since cottoned on to the fact that the industry is definately not acting in musicians interests, because while the Music industry are busy criminalising and raping the musicans best friend, the kids, we still aint seeing a cent for our endevours.
Hows about the "bosses", get out the way and let us muso's do what we always did best; SELF promote. We have the net these days, our "means of production", as those whacky old russians used to call it. We can do it ourselves.
Re:good news (Score:2, Insightful)
If you have the means to produce and self-promote, then what is holding you back? As far as I know, the RIAA and other music cartels around the world have not yet made it illegal for independent artists to do it themselves. Go for it, and make it happen. I, for one would love to see
Re:good news (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as I know, the RIAA and other music cartels around the world have not yet made it illegal for independent artists to do it themselves.
It might as well be illegal. So many indie artists would use filesharing ("legally") to spread their stuff to the world. The RIAA wants to bring all file-sharing down because it is "illegal" or "unethical". It's a load of cold, hard crap. Consider this: indie artists get very little (if any at all) air-time on radio. Even the artists who do get air-time are made to pay for it (the studios subtract the fees against the artists' profits). Now let's say someone wants to create an indie radio station. Too bad, gotta go through the FCC, pay fees, and yada yada. And what about playing indie music on regular radio stations? Not gonna happen. The radio stations are put under the fingers of each studio. The (RI/MP)AA have this sick, twisted, and tyrannical view of art, science, and media. They infest the masses with this idea that an abstract idea or representation can be copyrighted. They have this idea that "to benefit artists" the exclusive right to copy, play, or use the song/art/media is given to the "artists" ::cough cough::ahem, studios::cough cough::. Anyone with good experience with the Constitution should cringe at this. For those blessed souls who do not have a baboon as president, the US Constitution provides that copyright exists a) for limited periods of time and b) exists only to be used for the progress of art or science. NOT for the benefit of just the "artists"...er...studios. Since the Constitution supercedes all US Law, much (if not all) of the US Copyright Law is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
These facts haven't stopped the (MP/RI)AA from spreading their propaganda and their lies. The Media is allied with these cartels, and the sad state of American media has a) led to indoctrination and b) led to crackpot journalism. "News" with little analysis, incorrect analysis, or the complete lack thereof is rampant in American mass media. The news networks present these stories about "illegal file-swapping" or "filesharing bandits" which are completely one-sided. When I was younger and had no idea about the truth, I believed what they said about Napster. It sounded like some sort of evil plot. Until I learned the truth. I learned that the truth truly does set one free. I learned that the Media (as any group with power) only wants more power. They think the world would be a better place if everyone just did everything the way the media wanted. Most likely, this would only benefit the media. That is the state of things now. The Media is on this self-appointed crusade. Yet now they have experienced the bulk of their power. The news relics of the cold-war are no longer adequate. People are actually becoming disgusted with the media. Movie viewership is far below projected estimates this year. The MP/RIAA claims that this is the underhanded dealing of filesharing "pirates". Since these cartels have so much influence, they dance about unchecked, weilding lawsuits, subpoenas, and red tape. I hold the opinion that the MP/RIAA hold much less wealth than we are led to believe, and that is why they have begun these attacks. They are desperate, and they know that copyright provides enough leverage for the MP/RIAA to become some state-sponsored thing. They'll get their money (somehow they'd get it; energy research is willingly cut out of the budget, but the MP/RIAA must get their new subsidy) and they'll be happy...at individuals' expense. Their rights end where ours begin.
To those filthy corporate bastards: Sorry, we left our eyepatches at home. Cartels are much more piratical than we. We the consumers are being alienated. Why not make something that we like? Capitalism is founded on the principle that competition forces innovation. Capitalism does not induce bitching about consumers. F^** you!
Re:good news (Score:2)
Bad news (Score:2, Insightful)
Here is the original article (Score:5, Informative)
an openrights.org blog entry [openrightsgroup.org].
The page has a cool link to WriteToThem [writetothem.com] where UK readers at least can quickly find out who their MEP is and how to contact them.
Re:Here is the original article (Score:2)
For the record, I think the Open Rights Group are still looking for pledgers for their funding pledge [pledgebank.org], so that they can properly start up. You know it makes sense, fellow Brits.
Hypocrites! It is Copyrights that reward terror (Score:2)
So in truth, the copyright industry reeks with blazing hypocracy and I wouldn't be supprised if some were doing this simply to hide their own dark r
Re:Here is the original article (Score:5, Interesting)
I am concerned at attempts to widen the uses for Data Retention beyond the initial aims of combatting serious crime such as terrorism.
I strongly believe that acceptance of the proposed amendment by MEP Bill Newton Dunn, which has been the subject of lobbying by the CMBA, would make the law an invasive and overbearing infringement of our rights to both free association and privacy.
I am disturbed that this attempt to change the scope of the legislation has come despite prior justification that it was necessary for fighting terrorism and would be limited to fighting serious crime.
One of the strongest arguments against this type of legislation is that its use is inevitably broadened in an undemocratic and authoritarian manner. This inevitably weakens public support for what might otherwise be seen as acceptable to society.
Abuse of process and betrayal of public trust in this way, supported by misleading lobbying by special interest parties is profoundly undemocratic.
What is more, it is inevitable that the public's response to such an egregious abuse of power to diminish privacy would include the widespread use of technological countermeasures that would undermine the intended purpose of the legislation.
For these reasons I would ask you to ensure that the legislation is not hijacked when it comes before the Parliament in the coming weeks.
That's ok, nobody noticed anyway :) (Score:1)
an openrights.org blog entry.
Hello. You must be new here.
Did you think somebody would actually RTFA and notice that the submitter posted the wrong link?
Re:Here is the original article (Score:2, Interesting)
Its a lot more than i expected! It does work, you can get through to the people who matter.
How to support Open Rights Group (Score:2)
The pledge drive [pledgebank.com] is getting close to completion, so if you want to be one of the thousand founding donors, you need to hurry as there are 39 places left.
Great timing (Score:2)
The arrogance! (Score:3, Interesting)
They think they can force everybody to use technology that will only benefit them (remember the hard-drives that were supposed to check if the data they copy is copyrighted?).
This arrogance only warrants one thing: that "industry" shall be pirated to the croporate death penalty. The slow one: diminishing into irrelevence and oblivion through gradually diminishing sales.
Re:The arrogance! (Score:1)
The EU is "better" than the US (Score:5, Interesting)
Here in Europe, the success rate for such capers is only about 50%
So let's see what happens this time. Remember, if the EU Parliament doesn't immediately give in, it's still a feasible tactic to target individual countries, bring about some division and then see if the Überparliament has meanwhile changed their tune.
Re:The EU is "better" than the US (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this this really insightful comment [slashdot.org] (from the thread about DMCA Abuse) sums it up.
Re:The EU is "better" than the US (Score:2)
This illustrates for Canadians too... (Score:5, Informative)
Election coming up.. (Score:2)
Boycott (Score:5, Informative)
'nuff said.
Re:Boycott (Score:5, Insightful)
so instead of just boycotting the artists of the lobbying group formed by profiteering labels.
you can do Much better if you Acutally Support smaller artists who don't want to have anything to do with those evil profiteering exploitative labels.
That way musicians can continue to sing, people can continue to enjoy music, and only the fools who believed they were entitled to the ears and pocketbooks of everyone in the world will suffer..
Re:Boycott (Score:2)
And just think, the TV executives could make a reality TV series out of it: "Music vs Guns, find out who wins next week on Executive Hunter!"
"Have you no sense of decency, sir?" (Score:5, Informative)
"...the Army's attorney general, Joseph Welch, rebuked McCarthy: "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
"McCarthyism took place during a period of intense suspicion in the United States primarily from 1950 to 1954, when the U.S. government was actively countering American Communist Party subversion, its leadership, and others suspected of being Communists or Communist sympathizers. During this period people from all walks of life became the subject of aggressive "witch-hunts," often based on inconclusive or questionable evidence. It grew out of the Second Red Scare that began in the late 1940s and is named after the U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy, a Republican of Wisconsin."
It's ironic that, especially Hollywood, and, the recording industry, so much a target of Joe McCarthy should now be at the forefront of an hysterical witchhunt intent on making criminals of all and sundry.
Ironic? (Score:3, Insightful)
You say that as if Hollywood is the first group ever to suffer persecution, and then turn around and do it to someone else.
Re:"Have you no sense of decency, sir?" (Score:2)
That's what happens when you down on when you're down on Rue Morgue Avenue.
When fsck is Dylan when you need him?
I started out on limewire but soon hit the harder stuff
Everybody said send they'd stand behind me when the FBI got rough
But the joke was on me there was nobody even there to bluff
I'm going back to itunes now I do believe I've had eeee----nuff:)
Re:"Have you no sense of decency, sir?" (Score:2)
What I find most interesting is that an "evil army guy" called McCarthy on this. Military people are typically no-nonsense, Eisenhower's warning [wikipedia.org] notwithstanding.
Irrelevant (Score:1)
If you don't like their practices ... (Score:1, Insightful)
But you will, won't you. You attention-deficit, attention-seeking, aspirational, apple-loving, consumer media whores.
Also, in case the message wasn't clear, don't steal/borrow/"share" it either.
You wouldn't eat battery farmed eggs, even if they were free, would you! (would you? urgh).
Go back to riding your litle silver scooters, ipods and turtle-necks. You people make me sick.
Re:If you don't like their practices ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, after the past 6 months I have said fuck it. It is far easier to simply go completely to the illegal side and keep it hidden then to try to stay legal. The
Re:If you don't like their practices ... (Score:2)
But you will, won't you. You attention-deficit, attention-seeking, aspirational, apple-loving, consumer media whores.
Also, in case the message wasn't clear, don't steal/borrow/"share" it either.
"If you don't like the music industry: LIVE WITHOUT MUSIC"
Are you deaf? This is an honest question.
Re:If you don't like their practices ... (Score:2)
hijacked (Score:4, Insightful)
Consumer drons are teh problem (Score:5, Insightful)
the industry bullies tech companies (who oddly enough make as much money in a day as the RIAA makes in a week) and keeps down and/or lockes any new tech innovations and somehoe gets to dictate exactly how they work.
The RIAA could litteraly stop all analog radio, CD sales, net streaming, napser, itunes and so on, and offer a propriatery DRM as the ONLY way to get music, and the consumers would just take it accept for the 2% that go rouge, one of which will get a 60 minutes interview from prison just to scare the rest.
We have NO power as long as consumers continue to suck the Industry conglomerates' collective tits, and as long as they are the only place to get the milk...
Re:Consumer drons are teh problem (Score:2)
Re:Consumer drons are teh problem (Score:1)
1) A non-DRMed copy is provided to the government in each and every country where copyright is desired. This is used for archival purposes (cultural inheritance), libraries and so forth. No non-DRMed copy, no copyright.
2) No prison time. Prisons are overcrowded, and downloading a copy of a 30 year old work should not put you in the same place as rapists and murderers. Period.
3) All 'blank media' levies are immediately dropped and refunded. See, I
Re:Consumer drons are teh problem (Score:1, Troll)
thepiratebay.org (Score:3, Interesting)
CreativeCommons is based on Copyright Law! (Score:5, Interesting)
"License THE WORK (AS DEFINED BELOW) IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS CREATIVE COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSE ("CCPL" OR "LICENSE"). THE WORK IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAW. ANY USE OF THE WORK OTHER THAN AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT LAW IS PROHIBITED. BY EXERCISING ANY RIGHTS TO THE WORK PROVIDED HERE, YOU ACCEPT AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. THE LICENSOR GRANTS YOU THE RIGHTS CONTAINED HERE IN CONSIDERATION OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS. "
So even Creative Commons is bound by the idea of Copyright Law.
This is not a bad thing
What is the bad is abuse of Copyright law on both sides.
Either record labels are going to have to get a clue about the digital universe that is expanding and growing around us, or continue to persue Draconian methods of enforcement, and strict Copyright legalities on thier IP.
If they do so, i imagine that the online world will continue its move in another direction, that being more Creative Commons artists, and contributers across a wide spectrum.Releasing works under lisences with terms that we can sleep with at night.
So undermining Copyright law is not a good idea. What is is releasing works that don't punish the consumer/listener for wanting to share.
Thats the labels problem. Not ours.
IANAL,
D
E-mail the parliament! (Score:5, Informative)
List of emails [stoppa-storebror.se]
I have already e-mailed and called my countries. You should do the same.
Out to kill their own market (Score:5, Insightful)
The music industry needs new artists to keep making money but how to promote this new talent? Spitzer and other AGs are watching over their payola schemes making it harder to get radio airtime. Concerts are good, but getting to be very expensive undertakings. So how does the public get to hear the next great bands?
One way, even though they don't want to admit it, is by P2P networks. It is easy to listen to a song by some new artist you heard about. Very few people have enough money to just go out and buy CDs all the time and the risk of a lot of duds is too great, but downloading has much less adjusted risk, even with the much-publicized lawsuits.
There is a balance that must be achieved: all P2P downloading and no buying means no income for the publishers and artists, yet no downloading cuts off a very vital marketing channel.
With draconian copyright laws it is becomming a more serious offense to make a digital copy than to steal the CD from a store. Worse yet, governments seem all too willing to abdicate enforcement and police powers to these corporations. When the government and RIAA/MPAA have control of our computers and own all our data, it will be too late, the battle will have been lost, and we will enter a new historical period of information slavery.
All attempts to equate P2P with international terrorism must be soundly rebuffed. A threat to failing business models is *NOT* the same as the threat of killing innocent people. How bad to these proposals have to get before the RIAA/MPAA are kicked the hell out of these legal processes?
Re:Out to kill their own market (Score:2)
Re:Out to kill their own market (Score:2)
So you're saying that they have the right to buy big government legislation to pry into every aspect of your life?
Like hell you're the least bit libertarian in your leanings.
And yes, you have said exactly that several times in this thread.
Re:Out to kill their own market (Score:2)
Re:Out to kill their own market (Score:2)
Right, and the way they are trying to apply this "right" is exactly what I said.
That is what people are complaining about, and that is what you keep defending.
Re:Out to kill their own market (Score:2)
Fight off the law hijackers! "Let's Roll!" (Score:1, Insightful)
Can't possibly work. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Can't possibly work. (Score:2)
UK Home Secretary already has unlimited access (Score:5, Informative)
The totalitarian UK Government already has unlimited access to ISP records, courtesy of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 [magnacartaplus.org].
RIPA also can force ISPs to install mass surveillance equipment.
I mentioned some of the Govt's other totalitarian laws [slashdot.org] earlier today.
greedy fools (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's another one against "Intelligent Design" if the word was intellegently designed the RIAA wouldn't exist or wouldn't be as greedy.
Seems like (Score:2, Interesting)
Hijackers = terrorists (Score:2, Funny)
Patent infringement, too (Score:4, Insightful)
Since the european patents office granted 173000 applications last year, it means we basically get 474 new laws each day. This does not take into account the national patent offices.
erosion of liberty (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, that seems about right: "We need this extreme measure to fight terrorism. OK, you agreed to that out of fear.
Can you say "erosion of liberty"?
Re:erosion of liberty (Score:2)
No, it sounds suspiciously like dissident talk. What are you, a music-pirating terrorist ?
Date wrong? (Score:2)
All the activist documents and webpages say that the European Parliament will be voting on this on the 13th of December.
However, I just had a look at the parliament's own pages, dealing with the plenary session in question (12th to 15th December 2005), and it looks to me like the matter will be up for voting already on the 12th. I'm no great genius at figuring out the (deliberately?) Byzantine structure of the EU's documentation, but that's what it looks like to me.
Draft agenda for the plenary session, 1 [eu.int]
Indies need to lable their albums (Score:3, Insightful)
Indies need to label their albums specifically stating that they are not $ASSOCIATION members.
This sort of labeling was done in the US in the early 20th century to indicate non-membership in the various Trusts and cartels of the era.
I was disgusted (Score:3)
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:3, Informative)
However, it does not sound reasonable.
It sounds profitable.
There is a difference.
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:2)
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:5, Insightful)
You call "reasonable" breaking customer's computers by stealthily installing crippling software?
You call "reasonable" (sic) levying a special tax on blank media, "just in case" the media is used to "pirate" music?
You call "reasonable" blackmailing people who MIGHT have shared music into paying multi-thousand dollars "settlements" without any proof of wrongdoing?
You call "reasonable" (I'm not making this up!) trying to force all society to use specially-designed hard-disks that will check whether the data they are writing is copyrighted?
You call "reasonable" treating your customers like criminals?
You call all the abovementionned **ARROGANCE** "reasonable"?
I'd hate to see what you call "unreasonable"...
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:2)
Do you have a source for that? Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof and all that...
("All society"? *Most* of society doesn't even have access to a PC; I realise that you're upset about this, but a little less hyperbole wouldn't hurt...)
Incidentally, none of those things are even in the same league as attempting to get
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:5, Insightful)
Copying music just to avoid paying for it, is illegal in many countries, however.
Whatever the rights and wrong of copying music, some of the "solutions" are worse crimes than the problem - ie, crippling people's computers and making them open to hackers, or taking away people's privacy.
Of course, piracy, is not schoolyard copying, but commercial copying of music, and of course, that is illegal everywhere, and could be stamped out as soon as enough effort is put into it. Commercial piracy needs pressing plants, needs sales outlets and you can track these places down and shut them down.
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:2)
That really depends on your definition of "commercial". To me it means "for money on an organised basis", with an undercurrent of "by a registered company", but that's not necessarily a requirement. By my definition, for example, someone running off copies of CDs and DVDs on their home PC and selling them at work, to friends and family, or even on eBay, etc, is involved in commercial copyright
Parrot, meet cracker (Score:2, Insightful)
This is nothing more than an opinion. Period. Factually, piracy is not stealing, but either infringement of copyrights or the sea related kind, which I am too arsed to pull up right now. Piracy = copyright infringement = COPYING and DUPLICATING against the wishes of the copyright holder copyrighted works. Unless you can prove otherwise through coherent reasoning and logical arguments, you are only a RIAA parroting troll.
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:4, Informative)
Piracy is not stealing. Period.
Piracy is copyright infringement. Period.
Learn this simple fact, and you won't have to look like a fool in public.
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:2, Informative)
But I wouldn't call sharing music with friends "piracy".
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:2)
>otherwise have gone to the record companies and artists.
No, it is still copyright infringement no matter how you look at it, twist it and tries to come up with examples.
It would be good to actually check out on not only copyright law but also laws dealing with "stealing" and theft and you would notice the difference and how they are not related.
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:2)
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:2)
>didn't pay for, when you otherwise could have, it is stealing.
No, it is not, go read laws about stealing and theft and you will see it is completely false.
By the way, I just now have something in my possession that I did not a few minutes ago. I did not pay for it although I could have should I want to. In no way did I steal. What it is?
1) A drawing I just made
2) A book I took from the shelf here at work
3) A hammer I borrowed fr
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:2)
Alice: "The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things."
Humpty Dumpty: "The question is, which is to be master -- that's all."
---
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:2)
I'm NOT specifically referring to the SONY rootkit, but to OTHER software SONY disks STEALTHILY
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:2)
When responding, I extend the courtesy of lowering myself to the level of the respondee.
It is perfectly legal in Canada.
It's perfectly moral and ethical, because WE PAY A TAX ON BLANK MEDIA specifically for this purpose.
No, it is copyright
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:2)
Er, no. I CANNOT make a copy for a friend. That's illegal. But I can lend him a disk and he makes a
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:2)
>copy of it, that's perfectly ok.
Which is in teresting, because in some European countries it is basically the other way arround. I can make a copy and give to a friend, but he might not be allowed to make a copy of my CD.
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:2)
>are both illegal in the US.
So is murder. So what is the point? Because two things are both illegal, we should mix and use whichever terminology we feel for? That is hardly productive or help understand. How hard can it be to use the proper word for things? No one is arguing that copyright infringement is not illegal, but it is quite different from stealing. This becomes obvious when people start to te
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:2)
Considering the topic is about EU, you might want to know that it is perfectly legal in many EU countries. There might in some be a provision that the friend do the copy, but it is not infringement.
> That is, in effect, stealing.
No, it would at most be copyright infringement. Going to a store taking a CD, THAT is stealing (or shoplifting actually, but lets take a whole bunch of CDs). Creating something new, a copy, is at mos
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:3, Funny)
I honestly firmly don't care about music, songs, movies and enterntainment in general. But I do care about things like biological/technical/scientific advances. But for those advances I am against patents, not copyrights. In fact I am pro-copyrights because they let me control how my work is distributed. So for me what music industry is doing sounds reasonable.
Just remember how reasonable you think they are when they come knocking on your door for downloading a study of Mars called "The Red Planet" or a tre
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:2)
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:2)
I guess I didn't make myself clear: I don't download any movies or music from P2P or any other networks. When I want to watch something (on my computer, since I have no TV,) I'll buy it on DVD.
And I guess your missing the point. Suppose in your pursuit of gaining scientic knowledge you come upon a freely distributable file about Mars called "The Red Planet", download it, view it, and sometime later delete it to save disk space. Then a month later, after reviewing your ISP's records, the copyright police com
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:3, Insightful)
"I guess I didn't make myself clear: I don't download any movies or music from P2P or any other networks. When I want to watch something (on my computer, since I have no TV,) I'll buy it on DVD."
Roman, I think he's referring to infringement notices filed against people who had downloaded or possessed files
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:2)
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:2)
You can watch it on any DVD player that's been approved by the DVD CCA [wikipedia.org], true. But
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:2)
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:2)
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:1)
What about stuff that you might want to watch that hasn't been released on DVD and most likely won't be released? About the only way to get those would be via downloading.
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:2)
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:1)
However, even though I will download these, I would gladly buy these if the copyright owners would release them commercially. I personally do like having professionally produced boxed sets of old sh
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:2)
I honestly firmly don't care about music, songs, movies and enterntainment in general. But I do care about things like biological/technical/scientific advances. But for those advances I am against patents, not copyrights. In fact I am pro-copyrights because they let me control how my work is distributed. So for me what music industry is doing sounds reasonable. - it is interesting that a statement (gp), which simply expresses a belief or a point of view is mo
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:2)
I honestly firmly don't care about music, songs, movies and enterntainment in general.
The moderator probably found that line unbelievable. Depends on your definition of entertainment I guess.
it is interesting that a statement (gp), which simply expresses a belief or a point of view is moderated down as to 'protect' the sensitivities of certain population of /. Since I am not new here I understand that it is not acceptible to express your own opinion on /. if it differs from the major line of thinking
Re:I guess it's important to talk about it (Score:2)