Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Piracy

Music Publishers Sue Cox Communications Over Piracy 187

wabrandsma (2551008) writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica: BMG Rights Management and Round Hill Music have sued Cox Communications for copyright infringement, arguing that the Internet service provider doesn't do enough to punish those who download music illegally. Both BMG and Round Hill are clients of Rightscorp, a copyright enforcement agent whose business is based on threatening ISPs with a high-stakes lawsuit if they don't forward settlement notices to users that Rightscorp believes are "repeat infringers" of copyright. In their complaint (PDF), the music publishers also decided to publicly post IP addresses.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Music Publishers Sue Cox Communications Over Piracy

Comments Filter:
  • I wonder.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29, 2014 @05:17PM (#48487437)
    What do you suppose they think would be "enough" to punish copyright violaters? (Maybe they could start by using proper terminology?)
    • Re:I wonder.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Saturday November 29, 2014 @06:49PM (#48487979)
      Rightscorp is on the verge of bankruptcy, as it has not been very successful with its lawsuits. It is also being sued right now by some of its "victims", who claim its practices have been illegally intimidating and coercive, and otherwise legally unsound.

      In other words, from what I read recently at EFF "Rightscorp" probably has little to do with IP "rights" at all... it is just another copyright troll looking to scare money out of Mom and Pop.

      But they haven't been very successful at that game. My guess is that this is a last-gasp effort to make some money before it goes under.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I tell them we will roll a truck to serve their paper for fifty bucks a letter. They think thats crazy, that we should be their process server for free. To date not one of them have agreed to pay us to roll a truck and hand people the letter.

        • by gl4ss ( 559668 )

          your company should make that public info by commenting on some legislation or another.

          why? it's evidence that the damages per user are less than fifty bucks.

          anyways, how the fuck do they even know it's the same users at the same ip address, with isp's rolling the dhcp leases pretty short nowadays..

      • Re:I wonder.... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Rick Zeman ( 15628 ) on Saturday November 29, 2014 @08:25PM (#48488483)

        My guess is that this is a last-gasp effort to make some money before it goes under.

        ...using pages straight from the SCO playbook.....

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The lawsuit filed against rightscorp by the Pietz lawfirm reads very convincingly, and if successful will hold rightscorp's customers, officers, shareholders, etc personally liable for their illegal actions as a debt collection agency not following the rules of debt collection and going after debts that never existed.

        https://www.scribd.com/doc/247788809/1-Class-Action-Complaint-and-Jury-Demand

        https://www.scribd.com/doc/247788798/1-1-Exhibits-a-to-E-to-Class-Action-Complaint

    • Re:I wonder.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Saturday November 29, 2014 @07:05PM (#48488077)
      Also, I see in the BMG and Round Hill v Cox complaint linked by OP, that the complainants say in their point 3:

      ISPs are required under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") to implement and maintain a policy that provides for the termination of subscribers and account holders that are repeat copyright infnngers in order to maintain the safe harbor protection afforded by the DMCA from copyright infringement claims that the ISPs otherwise would enjoy.

      This is just plain false. The DMCA contains no language calling for ISPs to "terminate" their subscribers over copyright claims. It's a lie.

      Perhaps that's why Rightscorp is going bankrupt. Judges don't like to be lied to. A good defense attorney (and my guess is they have one) will tear that to shreds.

      They also say, in point 4:

      Despite these notices and its actual knowledge of repeat infringements...

      How do they know Cox "has actual knowledge"? Because they notified Cox? That's not "actual knowledge", that's just an allegation. A very different thing.

      All in all, I think I see why Rightscorp and its clients have not been very successful at these suits. Hell, *I* could probably rip them to shreds in court... if it weren't for the fact that IANAL and so I don't know proper court procedure.

      • Re:I wonder.... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by meerling ( 1487879 ) on Saturday November 29, 2014 @07:20PM (#48488177)
        Rightscorp has followed a simple process all along.
        Make threats to intimidate and milk them for money (extortion) and not actually go to court. I know the lawyers have a legal term for this kind of bad faith, but I've no idea what it is right now.
        I suspect they are betting that Cox would rather fork over dough than actually go to court for anything if it's not too high of a cost, and that's what they are betting on. If Cox is dumb enough to do that, then they can use that for additional leverage to force other companies to pony up instead of going to court. Remember, often companies don't care if they are guilty or not, they just choose the cheaper method of resolution.
        • Re:I wonder.... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by easyTree ( 1042254 ) on Saturday November 29, 2014 @07:32PM (#48488245)

          I know the lawyers have a legal term for this kind of bad faith

          "Business As Usual."

        • know the lawyers have a legal term for this kind of bad faith, but I've no idea what it is right now.

          Haha. Business as usual. :)

          Actually, I think it IS extortion. Normally, telling somebody you're going to sue them is not considered a "threat"... as long as you actually have a reasonable basis to sue and you really intend to do it.

          But telling somebody "pay up or we'll sue", when you don't have any actual intention to sue (and they don't... because judges don't allow those mass suits anymore, and individual suits would be way too expensive) you are just plain lying. And I think -- I don't know for sur

        • Re:I wonder.... (Score:5, Informative)

          by NormalVisual ( 565491 ) on Saturday November 29, 2014 @08:48PM (#48488563)
          I know the lawyers have a legal term for this kind of bad faith, but I've no idea what it is right now.

          I think you're probably thinking of barratry [wikipedia.org], although strictly speaking what Rightscorp is doing seems more along the lines of simple extortion.
      • 17 USC 512(i)(1)(A) (Score:5, Informative)

        by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepplesNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday November 29, 2014 @08:28PM (#48488493) Homepage Journal

        The DMCA contains no language calling for ISPs to "terminate" their subscribers over copyright claims. It's a lie.

        I don't know if you're reading the same DMCA I'm reading [copyright.gov], but 17 USC 512(i)(1)(A) applies the safe harbor only to service providers with "a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers".

        • by penix1 ( 722987 ) on Saturday November 29, 2014 @09:25PM (#48488677) Homepage

          but 17 USC 512(i)(1)(A) applies the safe harbor only to service providers with "a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers".

          I was going to say the same thing but the point remains that Rightscorp would have to overcome the wide open ""in appropriate circumstances" clause in the DMCA as well as be able to prove that a particular IP in a dynamic IP block constitutes a "repeat offender". Good luck with that...

          • Rightscorp would have to overcome the wide open ""in appropriate circumstances" clause in the DMCA

            Due to the "case or controversy" limit in the Constitution, U.S. federal courts do not issue advisory opinions. This means you can't just ask a judge what "appropriate" or "reasonable" means under a hypothetical set of facts; you have to sue someone. Perhaps getting a definition of "appropriate circumstances" on the case law books is Rightscorp's strategy with this lawsuit so that it can build a set of best practices for its publisher clients. Righthaven already got "Copyright owner must be named as a plain

        • by Cederic ( 9623 ) on Saturday November 29, 2014 @09:52PM (#48488753) Journal

          So if someone is found guilty of copyright infringement twice Cox may need to terminate their account.

          Who's been found guilty so far?

        • I don't know if you're reading the same DMCA I'm reading, but 17 USC 512(i)(1)(A) applies the safe harbor only to service providers with "a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers".

          I was quoting EFF. Strange that they might have gotten it wrong, but it may be that, as others suggested, the circumstances here aren't appropriate for that.

    • What do you suppose they think would be "enough" to punish copyright violaters? (Maybe they could start by using proper terminology?)

      I'm going to go with "force them to listen to the 'music' produced by this generation's music industry."

      That should be punishment enough for most crimes (even imaginary ones.)

    • when every last bit of media and equipment to use and produce any media is "owned" by the RIAA/MPAA, in the sense where they have complete control over what gets published, and somehow get a percent of profit for any and all time any bit of media gets consumed by anyone, anywhere, at all times.

      With that, complete control over the message, and with that, complete unwaiving control of what people believe in, as part of complete compliance to all advertising and messages espoused by partners, as sold to the

    • Looking at the list of songs and artists in Exhibit A, I would say they've been punished enough.

      It also explains why the recording industry is in the toilet.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29, 2014 @05:18PM (#48487451)

    Copyright is supposed to be a first-party concern and rightsholders seem uniformly determined to make other people do their dirty work (without even getting paid).

    • by arbiter1 ( 1204146 ) on Saturday November 29, 2014 @05:21PM (#48487473)
      yea rights holders want everyone else to do the work, foot the bill, while rights holders collect 100% of the $.
      • by Frobnicator ( 565869 ) on Saturday November 29, 2014 @05:39PM (#48487603) Journal

        I hope it goes forward.

        Not because I want the recording industry to shut them down, but because common carriers are exempt from the responsibility over their traffic. That is really the best solution for ISPs so they are no longer liable for the content that travels over the wire.

        ISPs getting reclassified as common carriers is a major step toward net neutrality, as common carriers are not allowed to discriminate over what they carry.

        • by reub2000 ( 705806 ) on Saturday November 29, 2014 @06:03PM (#48487737)

          Nope. Common carriers can be held repsonsible [cnn.com] for turning a blind eye to illegal traffic.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29, 2014 @06:34PM (#48487901)

            But of course! In the new America, law enforcement is *everyone's* responsibility. You know, if you see something, say something! There's a multibillion dollar prison-industrial complex that isn't going to sustain itself, somebody's gotta feed the monkey. When having an army of jackbooted thugs and ravenous lawyers just isn't keeping you in your fix, you'll shift the responsibility onto someone else and legislate that they do your job for you.

          • Nope. Common carriers can be held repsonsible for turning a blind eye to illegal traffic.

            Indictment != Conviction

          • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

            You seem to fail to grasp the difference between innocent before being guilty and the corrupt nature of modern 'US' law enforcement using charges as extortion and using the prosecutorial process as punishment to force certain kinds of 'ILLEGAL' behaviour. So net neutrality goes hand in hand with common carrier status and is required just like the favourite slashdot analogy road and no local government, state and federal government should not be prosecuted for all the illegal actions on public roads and the

            • by Sique ( 173459 )
              You seem to fail to grasp the difference between criminal law and common law. Innocent until proven guilty is a criminal law concept and doesn't exist in common law. There the general benchmark is preponderance of evidence. And here we have a common law case.
              • by xigxag ( 167441 )

                "Common law"? Federal copyright is based on statute, not common law. You mean civil law.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      This was the standard business practice of many record companies for many profitable years. The artist would pay everything including the cost of making the record (from their share), while the record company took 95% profits. I don't blame them for wanting to continue business as usual, I just don't see why our elected officials should assist them at our expense.
    • Nah.. They have staff lawyers who are sitting around too much and were tasked with trying to extort more money. A lot of the litigious crap going on in the world comes from staff lawyers.

    • Any story about 'rightsholders' who are not the creators of work evokes my automatic Big Fat Don't Care response. Go, torrenters!

      • Many authors choose to transfer or exclusively license copyright in their respective works to "rightsholders" who represent these authors in the market. So how are these suits at least in theory not on these authors' behalf?
        • its kinda funny, because the law works against their favor too, its almost as if the publishing company has all the power, and the invidual writers do not. I think the term is "forced to sell their work for peanuts on what it will eventually make", to people who are themselves not really talented enough to write.
          • by tepples ( 727027 )

            I think the term is "forced to sell their work for peanuts on what it will eventually make"

            You keep using that word "forced". What coercion is present in the author-publisher relationship, especially in the era of Internet self-publication?

            • the leverage of the publisher vs the leverage of the author. I wonder why porter's five forces doesn't wind up in more political conversations
              • by tepples ( 727027 )
                Then let me rephrase: How does the publisher still have such leverage even in the era of Internet self-publishing?
            • by Rakarra ( 112805 )

              You keep using that word "forced". What coercion is present in the author-publisher relationship, especially in the era of Internet self-publication?

              Because most media requires things that the artist either does not want to do or isn't suited to do or doesn't have time to do. Mostly, promotion and distribution. They are necessary, and Youtube is full of "self-publishers" who aren't going anywhere because no one knows their work exists (And of course, many of them may be no good in the first place).

  • The real reason? (Score:5, Informative)

    by BarbaraHudson ( 3785311 ) <barbara.jane.hudsonNO@SPAMicloud.com> on Saturday November 29, 2014 @05:18PM (#48487453) Journal
    They're doing this because Rightscorp's current "threaten to pay with no proof" business model has become too risky - they've heard the rumblings about class action suits. Of course, since Cox isn't hosting the files in question, their liability is the same as the phone company's when someone calls someone else to make a death threat. Common Carrier.
    • Re:The real reason? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Gr8Apes ( 679165 ) on Saturday November 29, 2014 @05:24PM (#48487501)
      But they're not Common Carrier, and this lawsuit may push that over the last hump. The sooner, the better, honestly.
      • by vux984 ( 928602 )

        Exactly. They are "like a common carrier". And too often we think of them as common carriers. But they have fought tooth and nail to have their cake and eat it too... the providers want all the common carrier exemptions but none of the restrictions, and they are NOT common carriers.

        As you say, anything that pushes them over the hump would be a good thing.

    • Common Carrier.

      Nope, they have fought for decades to avoid that label. The were given the label "Information Service" and that makes all the difference in the world. That enables them to issue poison packets when they suspect things they don't like, to cancel services to people, to double-dip and sometimes triple-dip for communications as seen in cases like Netflix, and more. It has helped them evade lawsuits about discriminatory service on the basis of customers potentially being slightly more expensive, and being able t

    • by davecb ( 6526 ) <davecb@spamcop.net> on Saturday November 29, 2014 @05:56PM (#48487703) Homepage Journal
      Rightscorp is arguably afraid ISPs will refuse to cut off people under the DMCA unless a judge has ruled in a legitimate court proceeding that the person has infringed multiple times. They now propose to saddle ISPs with massive, expensive and interminable legal proceedings unless the ISP agrees to cut people off on mere accusation.
    • Re:The real reason? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Saturday November 29, 2014 @06:40PM (#48487931) Homepage

      They're not a common carrier, they got something in many ways better: USC 17512 [cornell.edu]. Being an ISP is under section (a):

      (a) Transitory Digital Network Communications. - A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the providerâ(TM)s transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections, if -
      (1) the transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than the service provider;
      (2) the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider;
      (3) the service provider does not select the recipients of the material except as an automatic response to the request of another person;
      (4) no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections; and
      (5) the material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content.

      Notice anything in particular missing from this section? No DMCA notice, that only applies to (b) Caching, (c) Hosting and (d) Searching. They can send all those DMCA notices to /dev/null and it's legally kosher and they got full immunity. I expect Cox Communications will have this case thrown out quickly assuming they have a competent lawyer.

      • Notice anything in particular missing from this section? No DMCA notice, that only applies to (b) Caching, (c) Hosting and (d) Searching. They can send all those DMCA notices to /dev/null and it's legally kosher and they got full immunity. I expect Cox Communications will have this case thrown out quickly assuming they have a competent lawyer.

        It's not just enough to have no legal obligations, you have to make sure you do not take any actions that could be construed as accepting an obligation.

        The exact term escapes me at the moment, but I'll bet Cox created itself some legal issues when it partially went along with the various copyright enforcers.

  • No proof (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bl968 ( 190792 ) on Saturday November 29, 2014 @05:34PM (#48487575) Journal

    Rightscorp can't claim the subscriber is actually infringing their customers copyright, as their software tool can simply see if the information is available from the host in question but it cannot tell anything else about it. They have no way to know that anyone other than their self has actually downloaded the information in question. They can only guess and I hate to say it but you can't sue over speculation.

    54,000 claimed infringements over 64 days sounds like a lot, but it's basically just under once per second, and claiming each time is another incident of infringement. So basically their software is constantly checking the ip, and this could be argued constitutes theft of service since both Cox and the customer in question pays for the bandwidth.

    As for them downloading the information themselves, since the tool and the company that runs it is authorized by the copyright holder to search for and access their copyrighted files one could easily argue that no actual infringement taking place.

    I also think Cox should establish a reasonable handling charge for investigating and dealing with these automated complaints, I think 10$ per complaint sounds about right. So 54,000 x $10 = $540,000. Plus attorney fees and costs for this frivolous lawsuit.

    • Your proposed charge for complaints is too low by at least an order of magnitude.

    • I also think Cox should establish a reasonable handling charge for investigating and dealing with these automated complaints

      Whoa - you don't want to go there! Cox treats Rightscorp's settlement notices to users as spam, which is exactly how they should be dealt with, but turns out many other ISPs are going along with this bullshit from Rightscorp. That got me thinking - why? My guess is that maybe they are getting paid - maybe in some cases, well paid. Seems logical to me that would make a good strategy

    • Re:No proof (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fafalone ( 633739 ) on Saturday November 29, 2014 @10:53PM (#48488973)
      It's worse than that; Rightscorp doesn't even verify that your computer is actually capable of sending the file. The one and only notice I ever received was on a torrent that I uploaded 0 bytes on since it was all seeders when I connected, dl'd, and disconnected 5 minutes later. They don't even download a single byte of the file, let alone enough to verify it is in fact their content. I can't say if they connected but didn't download and used that as "verification"; but I strongly suspect the connection was/would have been refused entirely since I run up to date blacklisting. And since the notice specifically claimed I was 'sharing' it I doubt they hosted the material, let me download it from, and want to claim that as infringement.
      So my IP was listed in a swarm for 5 minutes and didn't upload a single byte of their content, and my ISP took the time and money to respond their bs and pay to send me a physical letter about it. What I did to that notice is not just not appropriate to talk about here... /b/ would sure appreciate it though.
  • by L. J. Beauregard ( 111334 ) on Saturday November 29, 2014 @05:41PM (#48487617)
    Then how about you fire your lawyers and hire some TALENT instead of just T and A?
    • Hey, what's wrong with T & A?
  • youtube (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29, 2014 @06:16PM (#48487807)

    The #1 piracy tool

  • Problem is any actor with money who wants it is able to extract a more or less complete picture of activity occurring on bit torrent.

    The system as it exists today is simply too open and too transparent creating a lightning rod from intelligence being wielded to justify all manner of legislative unpleasantries.

    If exposure issues are not fixed in bit torrent eventually we will see legislative reality that harms everyone more than any illegal activity.

    • Problem is any actor with money who wants it is able to extract a more or less complete picture of activity occurring on bit torrent.

      The system as it exists today is simply too open and too transparent creating a lightning rod from intelligence being wielded to justify all manner of legislative unpleasantries.

      If exposure issues are not fixed in bit torrent eventually we will see legislative reality that harms everyone more than any illegal activity.

      This is how the entire internet works, not just bittorrent.
      The only way to securely encrypt communication over the internet is end-to-end with pre-shared (SHARED OFFLINE) keys (keys, passwords, certificates, etc. all work as long as you don't use the established certificate authorities).
      The only way to hide your activity (as opposed to encrypting the contents) is to never use the same MAC address or connection twice.

      The internet connects hosts to hosts.
      Every single packet touching a major ISP is logged and

      • Every single packet touching a major ISP is logged and tracked by the government.

        While we should assume as much this type of information is out of reach of MPAA. Sniffing transport isn't the problem and isn't how MPAA is gathering their data for infringement notices.

        The problem is anyone on bit torrent network is able to infer activity of many many many other people just by normal participation in the bit torrent protocol.

        Access to room 641A *not required*.

        If you want SECURE communication establish the security OFFLINE. You CANNOT trust the channel.

        Secure communication is not really the point in this context... exchange between peers just needs to be facilitated differently so

        • You cannot have Bittorrent work (distributing files to anyone who wants to get them) while blocking the bad guys from participating because the bad guys can be anyone.
          Alternatively, you can't have Bittorrent be efficient (fast) if you plug it full of fake data.

          Bittorrent connects hosts to hosts to distribute files. these hosts don't know each other so they must communicate publicly to some degree. Anyone (including the bad guys) can and must do so for Bittorrent to work. The ONLY way to solve it is as I

  • Cox Communications shouldn't be doing anything about people who download copyrighted material without permission. They are an ISP, they provide internet connections.

    Does banks tell car companies to police the people that buy their cars because cars are used as get away vehicles? No.
    Does stores tell clothing manufactures to police the people that buy their clothes because you can hide stuff you shoplift in clothes? No.

    You get my point?

    It's not Cox's job. The Copyright Cartels need to police their own sh

    • So you're saying it's time for Cox to not be dicks?
    • Agreed, except - this isn't even about people who download copyrighted material without permission. This is about allegations that people are downloading copyrighted material without permission. That's all - allegations. There was nothing proven in a court of law - just some scum bag outfit like John Steele & Co. called "Rightscorp" pointing their fingers at IP addresses that may or may not connect with people they are accusing of downloading.

  • Until courts will stop rewarding RIAA for suing every backwater bar, video game streamer, internet provider, or anyone who plays their music at a party, they'll keep suing everyone. Hey, the music industry isn't as profitable as it was before the free transmission of information, so lets sue anyone who allows free transmission of information. If those buggy whip makers only were as sue happy then as the RIAA is now, maybe some people would still be using horse drawn carriages because cars could have been
  • If Rightscorp has "overwhelming evidence" of repeat infringers (or really, any infringers), they need to sue the offender directly or f**k off. If they don't actually have evidence, then they need to f**k off, then die in a fire, then go f**k off again.

    It's not Cox's job to enforce Rightscorp's allegations as if they were court orders.

    Judging from the complaint, Cox must feel like it has staked out a secure legal position:

    Cox's Privacy Counsel advised Plaintiffs' agent that it has implemented a "policy no

    • Absolutely, if they have all the evidence sue them directly. Sounds like they are arguing on behalf of their "agent" Rightscorp, Inc. to do their dirty work. Also they want Cox to be the agent of Rightscorp. Pay up buddies. These guys can die in their own copyright labyrinth.
    • Sounds like Rightscorp didn't like getting the finger, and now they've asked for a *jury* trial. LOL good luck with that, assholes.

      You are forgetting the Jamie Thomas case. Juries are apparently trivially simple to first select and then manipulate into awarding multi-million dollar infringement fines over 5 songs. Twice.

      And this time the defendant is not in the least bit sympathetic. Rightscorp thinks they can ride anti-corporate and anti-ISP sentiment into a multi-billion dollar fine.

  • Cox has actually gone the opposite way of what the RIAA want. About 10 years ago, we got a temporary shut-off from someone (not me!) downloading a movie (ok, yeah, it was me) but as soon as we said "it's gone" the net came back up. Then again about 3 years ago (different account, still Cox), "someone" was downloading The Colbert Report BUT all Cox did is send a letter, saying something about "you have a business account so yes you can legally share your wifi BUT someone downloaded this" but nothing happen
  • by sstamps ( 39313 ) on Sunday November 30, 2014 @12:52PM (#48491547) Homepage

    STOP BUYING THEIR MUSIC!

    Stop downloading their music.

    Ignore their entire existence.

    I don't care if you /like/ it. If you buy it or download it, you are giving them monetary and mindshare resources to continue to punish their customers and act improperly.

    When they are penniless, perhaps they will see the error of their ways. Probably not, but then no one will give a fuck about them any more, and they can do no more harm.

    In short, STOP feeding the monster.

    INSTEAD, buy/download music from GOOD actors in the market. Support them in spite of the BAD actors. Support the artists directly. Never support any labels unless they eschew being part of organizations like RIAA and ASCAP.

    I have done this for over twenty years. I am very happy with the music that is available to me, and also very happy that I don't support the bad actors in any way, shape or form. Indeed, I do all I can to put them out of business.

    You can do it, too. ALL of you.

    Take a stand. Make a difference.

If you steal from one author it's plagiarism; if you steal from many it's research. -- Wilson Mizner

Working...