Music Industry Sues Irish Government For Piracy 341
bs0d3 writes "The music industry has initiated a lawsuit against the Irish government for not having blocking laws on the books; on the theory that if blocking laws were in place then filesharing would go away. On Tuesday the music industry issued a plenary summons against the Irish government which is the first step towards making this litigation possible. This all began in October 2010 (EMI v. UPC), when an Irish judge ruled that Irish law did not permit an order to be made against an ISP requiring blocking of websites. Recently several ISPs across the European Union have been ordered by courts to block thepiratebay.org through legal maneuvers."
The Irish, being a compliant group... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Irish, being a compliant group... (Score:5, Interesting)
They could counter-sue the music industry for running an illegal cartel.
But more likely, based on how things in Ireland work when it comes to votes on the European Union, they could be thrown a token few million here and there, and a law will be passed. They are an easy nation to bribe.
Re:The Irish, being a compliant group... (Score:5, Insightful)
What baffles me the most is that "the music industry" is a supranational entity.
It's not "the US music industry association", or "the Irish music industry cartel", or something like that.
There is a supranational entity, named "the music industry", and it is both big and concrete enough to sue a country that doesn't play for 'its' interests.
That is a lost battle, that there is a cartel that, in our heads, represents the whole "music industry" of the world, and speaks for all the people related to music.
What they do with that power is also important, of course, but the fact that they detent it is an issue itself.
Supranational organized crime (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The Irish, being a compliant group... (Score:5, Funny)
It's funny because it will happen...
Re:The Irish, being a compliant group... (Score:4, Funny)
Rock On Rockall [youtube.com] - this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall [wikipedia.org]
Hands up Trousers Down [youtube.com]
The Helicopter Song [youtube.com] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Mountjoy_Prison_helicopter_escape [wikipedia.org]
Fenian Record Player [youtube.com]
If anything, the music industry should probably be more afraid of Irish music than of the Irish government!
Re: (Score:3)
What about by Flogging Molly? [wikipedia.org] "We'll drink, and drink, and drink, and drink, and drink, and drink and fight!"
Re: (Score:3)
This is like complaining that Exxon is "cheating scum" because it charges less for diesel than the Sunoco across the street.
Re:The Irish, being a compliant group... (Score:5, Interesting)
Nice hope. But since Bono and U2 moved their music business offshore from Ireland [irishtimes.com] to avoid paying taxes to the country he says produced him (and of course it did), there's no chance. Bono is the music industry, including the bloodsucking evil part.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway, we mod Bono and U2 up because of what they then DID with that money. Instead of turning it into blow and snorting it up their noses like your average CEO, they actually used it to do GOOD in this world.
Not in Ireland myself, but if I were I also might know about some good U2 has done for causes in that country also.
Some people think U2 is sanctimonious, I get that, but I just have to g
Re: (Score:3)
Who are the pirates? (Score:3)
Come to think of it, who are behaving like pirates in this case?
The Irish Government or the MAFIAA & Co. ?
Re: (Score:3)
Come to think of it, who are behaving like pirates in this case? The Irish Government or the MAFIAA & Co.?
Pirates, no. Gangsters, yes. Pirates don't just threaten to take your stuff if you fail to comply. This's classic protection racket stuff.
Why is it that, over the years, Ireland (and a few notable others) tend so often to pop up in the sights of these bums? Why Ireland? Why Spain? Wouldn't it be cheaper and more productive to buy (ie.) Southeast Asian or African pols than European pols?
Re:The Irish, being a compliant group... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not? The Irish capitulated to its private banks without a fight, agreeing to pay all those (largely foreign, largely British) bankers' stupid debts with their taxes for the rest of their lives, sending the Irish people back into the depths of the world's poorest.
Why wouldn't a new rapist like the "music" business see Ireland's government waving its tattered ass and jump to take its turn? There's still something left to steal, so no time to waste.
Re:The Irish, being a compliant group... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Irish government creates laws. Judges are there to judge if things are done in compliance with the law. If there's no law against file sharing then the judge couldn't ever judge file sharing to be unlawful, could he? What do they expect from the judge other than him saying "you are right, there are indeed no laws against this. Now what?"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Once upon a time two men wanted to get married. There was no law allowing them to get married, so they sued the (state) government. The (state) supreme court eventually decided that the lack of gay marriage violated the (state) constitution's equal protection clauses and ordered the (state) government to remedy that situation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
LOL (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
ARE THESE GUYS CRAZY?
They're filthy rich and entitled and want to be more of both.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
> I wonder what is next?
After suing their customers, suing a sovereign country was the next logical business move. After Ireland, they will sue the United Nations, only to learn they have less money than Ireland. So then they'll sue Portugal and Greece. Then God.
Then they'll come back to Earth and sue their distribution chain, then their singers and songwriters, and finally, in a final act of desperate cannibalism, they'll finally sue the Master of all Piracy - Weird Al.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
Each songwriter who signed copyright over to the music company has a copy of the original song in their memory! How can these illegal copies be allowed without proper licensing and fees?
Those songwriters better pay up, or get in line for a lobotomy.
Re:LOL (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd like to know what else you can sue the government for. If they had the death penalty for petty theft, I bet you'd see a lot less theft. Can drug addicts sue the government for not imprisoning their dealers? Can convicted dealers sue because the government didn't imprison their clients? There's endless fun to be had!
Re:LOL (Score:5, Interesting)
I could probably make a witty comment about the similarities between music labels and cigarette corporations, but everyone knows that they are both scum, so I won't bother.
Re: (Score:2)
we do this in our country (plain packaging for cigarettes). its a slippery slope, now you're not even allowed to show clients the range of cigarettes they want to purchase.. outright banning isn't too far off IMO.
3 Australia, the nanny state. (at least nanny told us not to waste all our money on a dodgy market, so although we have problems they aren't anything compared to Americas)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So you would support a ban on alcohol?
It's a poison sold for ingestion of the general public.
I actually would.. however, biggest difference is maybe that alcohol users don't generally force others to suffer from the poison as well. Compare to smokers who are poisoning non-smokers all the time. I can't walk thru any street in the downtown without someone poisoning themselves and me at the same time.. I, however, can walk generally without anyone trying to push alcohol down my throat. Your mileage may be different but I would expect it to be pretty close to my experience.
p.s. if it's about becoming n
Re:LOL (Score:4, Insightful)
You should do some research. I'll break it down for you.
Being in an enclosed space with a smoker = bad. Being within four feet continually of a smoker outside = bad. Walking down the street and passing a smoker = not bad. As much as the haters would like to get x banned. For any reason they can come up with. Even one that make no sense scientifically. They keep using it anyway. All the other things are bad. No one will notice if i include something that is not bad.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you suggesting that the survival of a human being is a convenience of less importance than poisoning oneself and others?
Are you suggesting that removing the right to live for a small number of people is acceptable but removing the entitlement to poison others and kill them is an abomination?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Secretly attempting to addict people to your product is one of the most insidious attacks on freedom that there is.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not saying that tobacco companies are innocent but it's interesting how _everybody_ feels qualified to take a swipe at them and regularly does. In the UK we often have headlines about how smokers cost the NHS huge sums - some guesstimates range as high as £5 billion. That's a huge amount of money and a serious drain on central coffers.
Except for the fact that smokers paid (roughly) £10.5 billion in tax in the UK last year. That means for every pound they used up, they put in 2. If the government decides to not put that money into the NHS (and paying for that bill is one of the reasons they use to explain their putting up tobacco taxes every year) then it's not the smokers' fault.
And no, I'm not a smoker, I'm an ex-smoker. I just hate lies and lazy statistics.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Additionally, I do not believe it is the government's function to mandate people's behavior for the purpose of maximizing those intangibles. Once the gove
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:LOL (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, you can sue a ham sandwich for being a ham sandwich. Dunno if you'll win - but that never stopped the "music" biz.
If you can sue the government for not having a law, you can sue for anything. That's pure absurdity. If you can win, precisely because there is no law making something illegal, you can win anything.
You could probably even win a suit against the government for not ruling you win.
Obviously any legal system must have either immediate decisions preventing the state from spending more than a second dismissing truly absurd attempts like this one. Better yet, it should allow the time waste, and simply decide in court to not just dismiss the suit, but also permanently ban any lawyer who brought the stupendously frivolous case, and charge damages in the amount of the cost to the government, plus punitive damages to inhibit truly rich fools from just buying up the government's time.
Then we could destroy the "music" biz, and hordes of frivolous lawyers, at once. Finally some good from the modern "music" industry.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
ARE THESE GUYS CRAZY?
If there was any doubt before now, it has been removed.
If they weren't completely batshit insane they would have sued a government with some money.
Get in line... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
>> what is the MAFIAA going get?
Why, the Irish people, of course.
Suing customers costs money. The Irish cost nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, this solution has been proposed before [gutenberg.org]:
I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasie, or a ragoust.
Re:Get in line... (Score:4, Funny)
Ireland: Now see here laddie, we ain't got that type of money now.
Judge: Hmm... What DO you have?
Ireland: Well, we have good old Irish luck! And we have this four-leaf clover that's always brought us... well financial ruin when you get down to it.
Judge: I hear you have good whiskey...
Ireland: WE'LL KILL YE WHERE YE STAND BY GOD!!!
Judge: OKAY, calm down. What else?
Ireland: We have a few bands I suppose we could part with. The Cranberries! They're Irish! They can have the Cranberries. Remember "Zombie?"
Judge: I'm trying not to... zo-hom-bie,zo-hom-bie,... damnit! Well, not good enough. Who else?
Ireland:
Judge: Oh come on!
Ireland: Who do ye suggest?
Judge: I think you know.
Ireland: Oh... God no... you couldn't be talking about
Judge: Yes. U2.
Ireland: (starts crying) No! Not Bono! You can take the Edge and... that other guy, but leave Bono!
Re:Get in line... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry, U2 isn't an option - they've already moved their publishing business to the Netherlands, after the Irish government capped the tax exemption on artists at a mere €250,000.
Re:Get in line... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, U2 isn't an option - they've already moved their publishing business to the Netherlands, after the Irish government capped the tax exemption on artists at a mere €250,000.
Err, I don't know the full story, but is there a tax exemption on programmers ? Potato growers ? Brewers ? Slutty fat chicks ? WTF, does being an 'artist' make you above the tax code now ?!? That's a hell of a superpower.
That cap seems absolutely fine to me. Even at 25000 it would be fine. Actually I think 0 is the better number.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Get in line... (Score:5, Funny)
Judge: Ok, you can have the fictional pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fuck Bono, he's probably behind this shit. He was whining about pirates taking "his" money since several years now.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe he should stop leaving his wallet unattended on his yacht.
-
Re:what is the MAFIAA going get? (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I the only one thinking that they don't want money, they want precedent?
Really, can a corporation really sue a government for not passing a law and win??!
That's not even wink&nod bribery, that's outright treason!
immunity? (Score:2, Insightful)
I support sovereign immunity is going to an issue pretty quickly.
Re:immunity? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not just about "sovereign immunity", to me it raises questions of .jurisdiction. From your wikipedia link:
Not to be confused with the principle of public international law that the government of a state is normally not amenable before the courts of another state
Re:immunity? (Score:4, Informative)
Hey, IRA: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hey, IRA: (Score:5, Funny)
time for the irish chapter, Anon O'Mous to step up.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think the music industry wants to go there (set foot in Ireland, that is). The British, who had their own empire ("the sun never sets on the British Empire"), who are well-known for their ability to 'deal' with indigenous populations of almost any nationality, have been trying, for centuries now, to effectively deal with the Irish.
That's the British, of all people. The previous empire that the US uses as a yardstick to gauge its current success. I'd love to know what the music industry is drinking t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked, the IRA is still around.
Re: (Score:3)
Turn of the century was over 100 years ago. Everyone who might remember remember is dead. Otherwise, we don't have a "Civil wars of tiny countries" educational requirement.
someone who would want to speak actively in a discussion involving political histories of other nations, is required to know about it. or shut up.
ireland is by no means tiny, and ira by no means a joke, even today.
Separation of Powers? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the case of using judicial mean to "force" changes to the law itself, which is in the legislative area.
Re:Separation of Powers? (Score:5, Informative)
I thought so to, but it turns out (if you read the article) that the suit is about that Ireland has not implemented certain items in Union legislation. Thus, a court proceeding for Ireland is entirely appropriate, especially since Union law have precedence. The court is then asked to look at whether Irish law is compliant with Union law, so the court cannot force the state to make new laws, they can however force the state to follow Union law.
For the non-european who have no idea about how it works (this is a simplified version): EU legislation can be seen as federal law, but most of the legislation (known as directives), are actually laws about that the states should make laws fulfilling a certain set of requirements. If a state does not implement "federal" directives in local legislation within the directive's implementation period, those individuals and companies that suffer some kind of damage that they would not have suffered if the law was implemented, have the right to sue the state for non compliance. This is a normal procedure; try to solve it locally at first, the next step is to take it up with the Union so they can start infringement procedures against the state. Normally, the courts would in this case ask for union level courts for an opinion of the compatibility between state and union law.
Wow... (Score:4, Insightful)
What Are They Expecting? (Score:5, Interesting)
Gee, government, not fondling the MAFIAA's nuts enough, so they hit you. Now, are you going to say "I walked into a door" and let them do it again, or are you going to man up?
You know what happens when you give a bully your lunch money? He threatens you for it the next day.
Know what happens when you give the MAFIAA a yard? They take a mile.
There is only one way to stop a bully. Stand up to him.
There is only one way to stop the MAFIAA. Cut copyright to 50 years, and tell them if they don't back the fuck off, you're going to cut it to 20 years.
Re: (Score:2)
There is only one way to stop the MAFIAA. Cut copyright to 50 years, and tell them if they don't back the fuck off, you're going to cut it to 20 years.
No, replace copyright with something else. But, as greedy lawyers have an active hand in creating laws, I think this wont happen :(
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What Are They Expecting? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is only one way to stop the MAFIAA. Cut copyright to 50 years, and tell them if they don't back the fuck off, you're going to cut it to 20 years.
That wont stop them, at best that will only slow them down. They'll happily keep suing even if copyright is cut to 3 months. Long copyrights aren't to protect older works, they are designed to protect newer works from having to compete with older works.
The best solution is to change copyright so that the cartels cant own copyrights rather they can be contracted for distribution by the actual content creators, ergo, cant sue over something they cant own. Then jailing any media exec who even thinks of getting out of line for life + 70 years.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What Are They Expecting? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it was enough time for books being carted on horsedrawn wagons to a largely illiterate population to make money, it's enough time for your shit song and dumb assed movie to make money.
I don't think that 18th century Americans were largely illiterate. Thomas Paine's Common Sense pamphlet (published in 1776) sold 600,000 copies to a population of 3,000,000 people - that's 1 copy for every 5 people. Of those 3,000,000 people, 1 in 5 were slaves and 1 in 2 were indentured servants. Oh sure, a lot of people probably bought several copies of it and performed the colonial equivalent of sticking it under strangers' windshield wipers. But still, I think that a national ratio of 1:5 for a non-religious printed publication is impressive, especially if hardly anybody could have even read it at the time.
What would be the equivalent of Common Sense today? 61.6 million copies of something for 308 million Americans? Is there a single book, newspaper article, political manifesto, or any other publication that comes close to that today? Sure, there's probably a TV show or movie or something that almost everybody today has seen, but I'm more interested in comparing the overall interest in reading between 1776 and 2012 (especially when the reading requires the commitment of paying to read a print publication rather than checking Google News three times a day for the cost of electricity). The most widely-read publication of today, as far as I can tell, is AARP Magazine, with a circulation of 22.4 million in 2011, roughly 1/3 what Common Sense achieved over 200 years ago. Except I don't think that really counts. AARP is a periodical and it has had 50+ years to get to where it is now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't need to do that, though it would be nice. All they really need to do is say they'll play ball, and then ban the distribution, sale and download of any CD or individual song that the companies in the MAFIAA cartel own..
And nothing of value is lost (for the oldies-and-goldies you could download the music without being a pirate: the copyright expired in that country anyway).
Irish Gov should sue the music industry (Score:5, Insightful)
SImple solution (Score:5, Funny)
Change the laws: copyright on music expires after 20 days. ISP have to block websites hosting infringing copies of music 3 weeks after being given written notice of the specific file/url/whatever to block. Of course once the copyright expires the block is no longer required (since it isn't infringing anymore).
Everyone wins!
Oh, I see. (Score:2)
It's a desperate move to replentish their supply of dead babies [gutenberg.org].
Accelerando (Score:4, Informative)
Causal Link (Score:5, Informative)
The crux of the case will lie in proving that there is a causal link between the lack of laws requiring ISPs to block websites, and the damages claimed. The precedent is Francovich v. Italy. However, given that the judge in a ruling against British Telecom forcing them to use Cleanfeed [wikipedia.org] to block access to websites like Newzbin and TPB acknowledge that tools to circumvent the system were available. And, in fact, Newzbin has released a client allowing access to their website despite the Cleanfeed block. The same software allows access to TPB. It relies on both encryption and the TOR network. Newzbin told BBC news that 93.5% of UK users have downloaded their Cleanfeed circumvention software. This flies in the face of the judge's comment that "Even assuming that they all have the ability to acquire [the means to circumvent Cleanfeed], it does not follow that they will all wish to expend the time and effort required."
93.5% of UK Newzbin users may not be "all" people in the UK who want to use file sharing networks, but it certainly means that establishing the causal link between lack of ISP blocking remedies and damages from file sharing will be difficult. People want access to those files, and Cleanfeed has proven largely ineffective at stopping two of the main sites involved in sharing. It should also be noted that these sites are not the actual hosters of the allegedly damaging files; they are merely portals to peer-to-peer networks that have other access methods available (e.g. DHT on BitTorrent). Again, the claim that blocking these websites would prevent financial damage is rather dubious.
Can somebody correct this for me ? (Score:5, Interesting)
What next, sue voters for not ensuring their revenue stream
So in their eyes I can be guilty for not successfully electing a government that ensures their income !!!
I am painting it every which way to try and make sense of this
I wish we could outlaw lawyers but considering that they would be enforcing that law, it may end the universe H2G2 style and replace it with something more bizarre.
More potential revenue. (Score:5, Interesting)
So not only do they blame the pirates themselves (because their actions may or may not result in a loss of potential profit), but they blame people (in this case, the government) who don't try to stop them (because, if they did stop them, they couldn't do something that may or may not result in a loss of potential profit)? I guess everyone's to blame, then. Clearly the people didn't try hard enough to force the government to pass such laws. Sue everyone!
Give us back our public domain! (Score:5, Insightful)
We've lost the plot somewhere. 5-year copyright swelled to 7, 14, 28, 50, 75, 90, 120 years...
With each increase of copyright duration, the copyright lobbies have robbed the public of that much more creative works. We, the public, have fulfilled our end of the bargain, and we have granted a monopoly to the rights holders. They taken a tool we bought them, purchased with our tax dollars and our court system, and they have turned it into a weapon of control against us.
We have the power to take this weapon away from them any time we want--lobbyists and politicians be damned. Do not give these companies one cent. They are using what we gave them to exert ultimate control over us. Until they start giving back to the public domain, feel free to add "torrent" to any search for their creative works.
Re:Give us back our public domain! (Score:4, Insightful)
I just don't understand why there is no world wide movement for requesting setting back copyright terms to 20 years? Even in UK 100 year law extention just passed. BBC article on it was wrote like PR bullshit from recording companies. That's what's happening - journalism ignores this issue (some of them willingly, some of them are not allowed to even think about it, but lots of them simply don't care, because it's "difficult" subject for beer/pizza/tv junkies to understand).
I say - we need 20 year limit back on track. With current media consumption it is more than enough for company to regain costs, and see if it's even are ready to regain costs. Argue that everyone can squeeze enough profit from 20 year term. Copyright cartel will hard time to explain why they need 100 years.
you dont 'understand' ? (Score:3)
I just don't understand why there is no world wide movement for requesting setting back copyright terms to 20 years?
so you dont understand why there is no worldwide movement for correcting 'copyright issue' ?
maybe because people dont give a shit because they are not only poor, and struggling to survive, but also undereducated and culturally deficient ? (85% of america only does with 15% of national wealth/income - 7% gulps 72% of it).
people are fighting for survival. some are working on two jobs. some start working in high school to support their family. and no - you cannot expect everyone to overcome 'great odds'
I didn't think there were any Irish lawyers... (Score:5, Funny)
Strange, I didn't think there were any Irish lawyers.
None of them can pass a bar.
Re: (Score:3)
Is it mildly entertaining that the world can get away with racist colloquialisms (i just wanted to say that word) against the Irish? I'm, what...half-Irish-ish...totally not offended by that comment...I even chuckled. Just think it's weird that one could say this without catching hell about the Irish but not, say, about Mexicans.
Battle of the Book (Score:5, Interesting)
The full article about Saint ColmCille and his fight for free access to knowledge and Copyleft is available here (PDF). [ed.ac.uk]
(and after all, if those lawyers working for the music industry are serious about that copyright shit, why don't they join the army and fight that battle on the front line, huh ? Hand me a banana bomb, there's a cluster of them coming our way...)
Suing the Irish government (Score:4, Insightful)
File sharing? So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
So they say file sharing is killing the music industry. Even if they're right (and that's by no means a given) ... so what? People can still record and distribute music without any music industry. With computers and the Internet it's easy and pretty cheap. But even if somehow all musicians decided to stop recording and distributing ... again, so what? We can live without recorded music. All the money people currently spend on CDs would be spent on other entertainment instead, such as live performances.
Copyright is a tool for the benefit of society, not a natural right of artists (or the parasites who trick them into lopsided contracts) to make money. As far as music goes, there's just no measurable benefit to society to justify any significant effort or expense on copyright enforcement.
I say the proper response to this demand is to declare music to be outside the scope of copyright. Entertainers, learn your place and watch your step.
Its the MBAs & lawyers not the artists (Score:5, Insightful)
We had music be for we had the wheel; culture existed before copyright. Besides, we have more than enough PAST music that little new is being created. This protectionist system is not adding much benefit to society.
Nobody has a right to a job doing whatever they want to do. Industries must be allowed to die when their time has come! This isn't about car company bail outs, we still need cars. This is more like banning teleporters because it'll put the airlines out of business.
The greed mentality is what it is always about; take everything away from you as possible and make you pay somebody who controls it. We've gone so far as to privatize ownership of WATER, including the rain and make people pay for the water collecting naturally in their own backyard- literally. It has been done and that evil thinking continues to spread; as CRAZY as that sounds the issue will come to your area someday in the future unless trends change. Privatization has always been about handing power to the politically connected so they can leverage that power into profit and it never has anything to do about helping anybody. Copyright has NOTHING (today) to do with helping the "starving" artists and everything about control.
Music is no longer a "product". (Score:3, Insightful)
Music is no longer a "product"; it is becoming a "service". (Streaming, downloading, etc). Music has actually been a service throughout most of human history, i.e., before recorded music you had to go where the musicians were to hear them. The "record business", starting around 1905, turned music into a product -- records, then cassette tapes, then CDs. The product is essentially "containers" for music that require a distribution infrastructure. But today we no longer need those containers and distribution costs nothing. How the "record companies" initially got so much power over the musicians is a sad story. Imagine if the people making wine bottles had control over what wines got made!
In related news... (Score:3)
EMI is also suing God, for not affixing "copying is stealing" to His commandment "thou shalt not steal". In addition to monetary compensation, they are asking that the court order God to smite thepiratebay.org.
Why cant.... (Score:5, Interesting)
A government declare war against a corporation?
"The Irish government recognizes any employee or person affiliated with the RIAA or MPAA as an enemy of the Country and will be killed on sight. We ask the United states government to allow us to run a military operation and bomb the corporate locations of all RIAA and MPAA operations, their lawyers offices, and anyone that claims affiliation with them."
They are terrorists just like Al-Quieda, why cant a freedom loving country declare war against them?
Soon... (Score:3)
... The MPAA and RIAA have sued world governments for not requiring anti-piracy shock collars on all citizens. They claim that, were anti-piracy shock collars in place, piracy would disappear and people would go back to their rightful activities - buying music and movies. Critics charge that the shock collars inhibit freedom of speech... or at least they used to until they had shock collars put on them. Now they're all for the idea. Personally, I think that anti-piracy shock collars are horrib... *BBZZZZZTTT* WONDERFUL idea!
What's next? (Score:3)
AFP - Flash: MCP Records sues all citizens everywhere for not buying Justin Bieber albums.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What do you want MAFIAA to do? (Score:2)
When will the MAFIAA actually do the world a favour and go after the real pirates?
Whoa, waitag*ddamminit !!!
Do you want MAFIAA to sue themselves???
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you have enough money. Taking on governments, in their own court of law, is usually a no-win situation.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)