No, I don't miss the point.
Why is trespassing prohibited? It's easy, you just turn left from the pavement, go to the door, push the handle and you're in.
Yes, you did miss the point, and by a mile.
Google didn't go to the door, push the handle and go in. They stood in the street. In public.
If you were standing naked in your living room in front of the great big picture windows with no curtains, would you be upset if someone saw you naked? Well, then don't stand naked in front of the window stupid!!!
Same issue here. People are broadcasting their wifi signal in public. It is their own fault if others can see it.
Wifi is a broadcast. If you don't want people viewing the Wifi traffic you are broadcasting in public then encrypt it.
A better analogy would be ... you take all your furniture our of your house and set it up on the lawn. Now, with everything on the lawn, in full public view, would you be upset if someone came over, made themselves a sammich and spent the night in your bed?
Well, you might, but you can't fault someone for using something that you placed in full public view without placing any restrictions upon their use.
Therein lies the issue ... restrictions. If you are broadcasting Wifi unencrypted, you have not places any restrictions upon its use. If you can't figure out how to encrypt it, that isn't my problem, just as it isn't my problem if you decide to live on the front lawn.
Google forces you to rebuy the public domain books via their "service"
try taking a Project Gutenberg epub,importing it into Google books service. not happening currently. google books is baked into most android devices these days.
/sigh
Here we go again. Let me know if I'm going too fast for you. You think you are "forced" to buy something by Google. What Google is doing is offering a service. You can choose to purchase the service, or you can choose to not purchase the service.
See, choice. Nothing forced. Sure, it is much easier to pay the fee and use the service. But it is not necessary. I can get another eBook reader for my android. I can import Project Gutenberg texts into my android. The service is convenient.
You might want to concentrate a little more on making a coherent argument instead of the personal attacks. Or were you just checking out my ass?
For every person correctly identified as a "high risk" traveler by (the behavior detection officers), 86 were misidentified
86 to one false positive ratio. Outstanding job officer!!!
Even better, still from TFA ...
The Accountability Office said it looked at 23 occasions in which 16 individuals -- people later charged with terrorism-related activities -- passed through high-threat airports. None is known to have been identified.
SO, 86 false positives for every "high risk" person identified. Yet still not a single terrorist?
So we have naked scanners that can't find a gun. Behavioral profiling which incorrectly targets 86 people for every one they correctly identify, and 23 known cases of terrorists going through our "security" and not one was identified.
If I were a terrorist, I would wait until the next big travel holiday (day before Thanksgiving, Christmas week, spring break, etc) and go to the biggest airport with the longest lines at security. Then I would blow myself up in the middle of the security line. Should be a nice addition to the security theater, don't ya think?
Shame those public domain works are too hard to find for ya. Lets try the Evil (TM) Google books shall we ...
If I go to http://books.google.com/ and type in shakespeare, I get 9.8 million results. The very first one (http://books.google.com/books?id=w1kJAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=shakespeare&hl=en& amp;ei=GK2oTauMLPSx0QGel7z5CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6A EwAA) brings me a 115 page scan of the entire text of Hamlet.
So the Google books, who the OP, nee troll, says is locking up public domain works, not only provides access to the entire book, for free, but also provides links to a plain text version, and a link to download the entire book as a PDF. Shame they are locking up these public domain works like that.
If that wasn't good enough for you, there is also a link to "find it in a library" which showed me five libraries within 10 miles of me that have this very edition in their collection.
How exactly are they making them "near impossible" to find?
Of course, the text of Hamlet is also available through the Project Gutenberg website, but I wouldn't want to confuse you any further.
"How about the music industry decides to stop selling their content in mediums that are used by a computer, and instead sell it a new medium with new hardware that doesn't involve computers at all."
Ok, lets indulge your fantasy. Lets imagine it will not play on a "computer." I'm going to ignore the rather HUGE technical details here and just play along ...
If your music will not play on a "computer", then define "computer" for me. Would that include my car stereo? My car stereo can play MP3s. How about my home stereo? My home stereo can play MP3s. Hell, my home stereo can play FLAC. Are you seriously suggesting that record labels ignore 30 years of technological advances and play Luddite?
Would LPs work for you? They are not a computer. They cannot be played on my computer, or on my car stereo, or on my home stereo.
Now that we've settled on a medium that I cannot play, why would I buy any music from you? You ran away and hid and put your head in the sand yelling I can't hear you. And I will still be able to take your recorded music, and copy it onto my computer. Why? Because I'm not an idiot. Absolute worst case scenario, is I set up my record player (technology circa 1950, tyvm) and play the music through my completely independent (not connected to any computer, or computer-like) stereo, and place a microphone about 12" from the speaker and record to another device.
If you are the record company considering such a move, you should recognize the fact that as much or as little technology as you put in front of me, as much or as little DRM or legal restriction you put in front of me, that if I want to listen to the music, I will do so, and I will do so on my terms. I ported my entire CD collection to MP3 7-8 years ago. Not to share, not to pirate, not to circumvent anything. Simply because this is how I like to listen to music, on my computer, or my iPod, or my phone. Why bother carrying around CDs, LPs, tapes or any other dead medium when I can put 30 album/CD/records worth on my phone. I can put my entire collection on an iPod.
Why, because I want to. If you decide to kill off recorded music by putting it in a format that is incompatible with all modern music players, you will have no one to blame but yourselves. I'm sure it won't stop you from trying though ...
"ROI is important, and their constant villification seems misplaced."
Unless you've actually read the history of some of the record labels, then the vilification feels accurate.
Record labels, and record executives, have a long and well documented history of stealing directly from the artists, of replacing the name of the composer/writer with their own name, and not paying the artist the royalties that are owed.
"The limit case, in our studies, is Bolivia, where the impasse of high prices, low incomes, and ubiquitous piracy shuttered all but one local label in the early 2000s and drove the majors out altogether. The tiny Bolivian legal market, worth only $20 million at its peak, was destroyed. But Bolivian music culture was not. Below the depleted high-end commercial landscape, our work documents the emergence of a generation of new producers, artists, and commercial practices—much of it rooted in indigenous communities and distributed through informal markets. The resulting mix of pirated goods, promotional CDs, and low-priced recordings has created, for the first time in that country, a popular market for recorded music. For the vast majority of Bolivians, recorded music has never been so prolific or affordable."
This illustrates the problem perfectly. The big multinational record companies can't compete in the Bolivian market. So what happens when they pull out? Does music suddenly disappear, as they would have us believe? On the contrary, a vibrant local music scene has fourished,
Get over yourself big media ... you aren't needed. People will create content without you. If IP laws were entirely done away with, the only losers would be the lawyers.
Completely not surprised. I'm in the will never do business with comcast again camp. Anytime Bittorrent was running, my internet connection was shit. Could not run WoW, could not check email, could not surf the web. Clicking any link on a web page resulted in a 20-30 second wait just to load a simple webpage. Didn't matter if it was plain text or a complex site like ESPN, just wouldn't load any faster. Close Bittorrent client and withing 2 minutes, your internet connection returned to normal.
Blizzard is generally pretty forward about working with IPS to ensure their game runs. Unfortunately, it probably means Blizz will help then configure their network so they still filter bittorrent, but their game works.
Lets say, just for a minute (and for the LOLs) that the city is indeed charging for permits to sell on the street, and that some drug dealers actually applied, paid for, and received those permits.
The city has multiple remedies already at its disposal for this problem. First, the people dealing drugs are breaking the law. Arrest them and charge them with that crime. Once you have charged them with the drug dealing crime, you can also add additional crimes for selling items not authorized by the permit, and probably for falsifying a permit (unless you think the drug dealer supplied his real name and contact info).
What you wouldn't do, is put a fence around the street corner and make everyone who wants to walk on it prove they are not selling drugs. You also would not tear up the sidewalk, or arrest the people living in the building the sidewalk is in front of without cause.
Now, lets talk about the "If you stand on a sidewalk with 99 drug dealers, and you are the only one selling apples" myth.
You seem to think that 99% of the content on Photobucket is infringing. Fine, prove it (since that is what the law requires). Tell you what, I'll make it easy on you. Find me 99 photobucket accounts that have infringing content, and I will match it with accounts that contain no infringing content. That would make it 50-50, not the 99-1 you think exists. Heck I'll bet I can find two non-infringers for every one you find. That would make it 99 drug dealers, and 198 apple dealers. Or should we start arresting apple dealers because they happen to sell apples near where drug dealers are selling drugs?
Oh wait, is finding 99 infringing accounts too much work for you? No problem, find me ten. Not only will I match your ten, I will still be able to find 99 non-infringing accounts. Balls in your court ...
By calling them a "service provider" and allowing them to hide behind 230 and other provisions, you allow a business model predicated on copyright violation to flourish.
But they aren't a business "predicated" on copyright violation. I, and millions of others, use Photobucket and similar sites to share my photos with people. Some people may upload works that are infringing. That does not mean the business is "predicated on copyright violation."
If a drug dealer stands on sidewalk and deals drugs, is the sidewalk predicated on drug dealing?
If Microsoft released a version of Word that contains code which infringes someones copyright or patent, does that mean Microsoft is predicated on IP violations?
(Microsoft steal someone's IP? Unthinkable, right?)
Lets step aside a moment see if we can get Mr. Coward to understand why having Photobucket (or any site) do preemptive filtering is not only bad, but near impossible.
This is a nice picture of a bridge near where I live. http://bit.ly/fsCwls The photographer's work is copyrighted, and has a link on his site to request licensing.
If I walk from my house to the riverfront and take a picture of the bridge, have I violated his copyright?
What if the picture was taken from almost the exact same location? It would not be difficult for me to produce a photograph that I have taken with my own camera, in my hometown, which I own the copyright on, which almost exactly replicates the copyrighted photo. Is that infringing?
If I upload that picture to my Photobucket account, have I violated his copyright?
If a filter is implemented, as some copyright supporters suggest, how is the filter to differentiate between the professional photographers picture and mine? Both were taken from nearly the same location of the same subject, at the same time of day. Is my picture going to be automatically removed? I own the copyright. I took the picture with my camera. I edited it on my computer with software I own.
Any filter or other technological measure implemented to automate this process will invariably take down many works which are not infringing, but are in fact covered by their own copyright. By implementing a filter, you are asking service providers to implement a technological device which in effect, limits my ability to display, share and/or sell my copyrighted photo.
Not only is the filter nearly technologically impossible to create, but it will stifle creativity. If, as an amateur photographer, I get inspired by Ron Saari's work (the photographer linked above) and want to see if I can produce photos as nice as his, am I allowed to upload it to the internet so my photo-club can critique my work. If I am attempting, as an amateur enthusiast, to replicate his work, am I violating his copyright? I'm not selling his work, nor am I giving it away and competing with him. I am simply trying to learn from him, and have my photo-club colleagues offer tips/hints. Would this violate his copyright? Doubtful. Would your filter recognize that? Doubtful. Therein lies the problem. A technological filter, however intelligently created, will not be able to make this type of distinction. My only recourse then, as an amateur would be to hire a lawyer to protect my rights, as granted to me under copyright. Sounds like a great deal for an IP lawyer and almost nobody else.
If you live in AZ and don't want to end up in Tent City, it's simple: Obey the law! Don't commit a crime! It really is that easy, people.
Riiight. Everyone breaks the law. We have too many of them for you not to accidentally break a few.
"It is unlawful for any person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law or regulation of any state or any foreign law."
So its a Federal crime to have anything to do with any fish, wildlife or plant that is illegal anywhere in the world. Good luck with that ...
"This business is changing, and one of the things that has always remained constant for five years is the entropy inherent to half century old company having its very foundations seismically shift."
Plain and simple - $17.00 for 15 songs - is a rip-off.
^This. The record companies have lied and colluded to fix prices at astronomical levels even as production costs declined.
I purchase lots of music. I won't buy a CD at $17. I won't pay more than $7-8 for an MP3 album. I don't but anything from artists whose songs are priced $1.29 each. I might consider buying a used CD, but I am not giving them money when they are artificially inflating prices.
Why is anyone surprised that a politician is parroting his patron's positions? What a politician says during the campaign bears little to no resemblance to what they do in office. Words are cheap, and often believed. Actions cost money, and the voters don't have enough.
Big businesses and the big unions give big money to their front men to conduct their business in Congress. Despite everything he said when running for office, Frankel is not a politician and is doing his master's bidding.
On the post: Judge In Google WiFiSpy Case Trying To Determine If Packet Sniffing Open Networks Is An Illegal Wiretap
Re: Re: Re:
Why is trespassing prohibited? It's easy, you just turn left from the pavement, go to the door, push the handle and you're in.
Yes, you did miss the point, and by a mile.
Google didn't go to the door, push the handle and go in. They stood in the street. In public.
If you were standing naked in your living room in front of the great big picture windows with no curtains, would you be upset if someone saw you naked? Well, then don't stand naked in front of the window stupid!!!
Same issue here. People are broadcasting their wifi signal in public. It is their own fault if others can see it.
On the post: Judge In Google WiFiSpy Case Trying To Determine If Packet Sniffing Open Networks Is An Illegal Wiretap
Re:
Wifi is a broadcast. If you don't want people viewing the Wifi traffic you are broadcasting in public then encrypt it.
A better analogy would be ... you take all your furniture our of your house and set it up on the lawn. Now, with everything on the lawn, in full public view, would you be upset if someone came over, made themselves a sammich and spent the night in your bed?
Well, you might, but you can't fault someone for using something that you placed in full public view without placing any restrictions upon their use.
Therein lies the issue ... restrictions. If you are broadcasting Wifi unencrypted, you have not places any restrictions upon its use. If you can't figure out how to encrypt it, that isn't my problem, just as it isn't my problem if you decide to live on the front lawn.
On the post: Why Google Should Buy The Recording Industry
Re: Public domain books.
try taking a Project Gutenberg epub,importing it into Google books service. not happening currently. google books is baked into most android devices these days.
/sigh
Here we go again. Let me know if I'm going too fast for you. You think you are "forced" to buy something by Google. What Google is doing is offering a service. You can choose to purchase the service, or you can choose to not purchase the service.
See, choice. Nothing forced. Sure, it is much easier to pay the fee and use the service. But it is not necessary. I can get another eBook reader for my android. I can import Project Gutenberg texts into my android. The service is convenient.
You might want to concentrate a little more on making a coherent argument instead of the personal attacks. Or were you just checking out my ass?
On the post: TSA Says 'You Might Be A Terrorist If... You Complain About The TSA'
Safer?
For every person correctly identified as a "high risk" traveler by (the behavior detection officers), 86 were misidentified
86 to one false positive ratio. Outstanding job officer!!!
Even better, still from TFA ...
The Accountability Office said it looked at 23 occasions in which 16 individuals -- people later charged with terrorism-related activities -- passed through high-threat airports. None is known to have been identified.
SO, 86 false positives for every "high risk" person identified. Yet still not a single terrorist?
So we have naked scanners that can't find a gun. Behavioral profiling which incorrectly targets 86 people for every one they correctly identify, and 23 known cases of terrorists going through our "security" and not one was identified.
Yeah, safer, that's the word I'm looking for ...
On the post: TSA Says 'You Might Be A Terrorist If... You Complain About The TSA'
Re:
On the post: Why Google Should Buy The Recording Industry
Re: Public domain books.
Sad little troll can't find anything without Google apparently. Or with Google even ...
http://www.authorama.com/
http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/find-public-domain-books.html
http://www.gutenberg.org/
Shame those public domain works are too hard to find for ya. Lets try the Evil (TM) Google books shall we ...
If I go to http://books.google.com/ and type in shakespeare, I get 9.8 million results. The very first one (http://books.google.com/books?id=w1kJAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=shakespeare&hl=en& amp;ei=GK2oTauMLPSx0QGel7z5CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6A EwAA) brings me a 115 page scan of the entire text of Hamlet.
So the Google books, who the OP, nee troll, says is locking up public domain works, not only provides access to the entire book, for free, but also provides links to a plain text version, and a link to download the entire book as a PDF. Shame they are locking up these public domain works like that.
If that wasn't good enough for you, there is also a link to "find it in a library" which showed me five libraries within 10 miles of me that have this very edition in their collection.
How exactly are they making them "near impossible" to find?
Of course, the text of Hamlet is also available through the Project Gutenberg website, but I wouldn't want to confuse you any further.
On the post: Why Google Should Buy The Recording Industry
Re:
"How about the music industry decides to stop selling their content in mediums that are used by a computer, and instead sell it a new medium with new hardware that doesn't involve computers at all."
Ok, lets indulge your fantasy. Lets imagine it will not play on a "computer." I'm going to ignore the rather HUGE technical details here and just play along ...
If your music will not play on a "computer", then define "computer" for me. Would that include my car stereo? My car stereo can play MP3s. How about my home stereo? My home stereo can play MP3s. Hell, my home stereo can play FLAC. Are you seriously suggesting that record labels ignore 30 years of technological advances and play Luddite?
Would LPs work for you? They are not a computer. They cannot be played on my computer, or on my car stereo, or on my home stereo.
Now that we've settled on a medium that I cannot play, why would I buy any music from you? You ran away and hid and put your head in the sand yelling I can't hear you. And I will still be able to take your recorded music, and copy it onto my computer. Why? Because I'm not an idiot. Absolute worst case scenario, is I set up my record player (technology circa 1950, tyvm) and play the music through my completely independent (not connected to any computer, or computer-like) stereo, and place a microphone about 12" from the speaker and record to another device.
If you are the record company considering such a move, you should recognize the fact that as much or as little technology as you put in front of me, as much or as little DRM or legal restriction you put in front of me, that if I want to listen to the music, I will do so, and I will do so on my terms. I ported my entire CD collection to MP3 7-8 years ago. Not to share, not to pirate, not to circumvent anything. Simply because this is how I like to listen to music, on my computer, or my iPod, or my phone. Why bother carrying around CDs, LPs, tapes or any other dead medium when I can put 30 album/CD/records worth on my phone. I can put my entire collection on an iPod.
Why, because I want to. If you decide to kill off recorded music by putting it in a format that is incompatible with all modern music players, you will have no one to blame but yourselves. I'm sure it won't stop you from trying though ...
On the post: New Study Shows Many Artists Think File Sharing Helps, Not Hurts
Re:
Unless you've actually read the history of some of the record labels, then the vilification feels accurate.
Record labels, and record executives, have a long and well documented history of stealing directly from the artists, of replacing the name of the composer/writer with their own name, and not paying the artist the royalties that are owed.
On the post: Why Hasn't The Report Debunking Entire US Foreign IP Policy Received The Attention It Deserves?
My favorite part (so far)
This illustrates the problem perfectly. The big multinational record companies can't compete in the Bolivian market. So what happens when they pull out? Does music suddenly disappear, as they would have us believe? On the contrary, a vibrant local music scene has fourished,
Get over yourself big media ... you aren't needed. People will create content without you. If IP laws were entirely done away with, the only losers would be the lawyers.
On the post: EU Hires IFPI Lobbyist To Lead On Copyright Issues; How Do You Spell Regulatory Capture?
How Do You Spell Regulatory Capture?
Lobbyist
On the post: Canadian ISP's Hamfisted Attempts To Throttle File Sharing Throttles World Of Warcraft Instead
Re: Comcast did this for years
On the post: Canadian ISP's Hamfisted Attempts To Throttle File Sharing Throttles World Of Warcraft Instead
Re: Blizzard
On the post: Jawa Threatens Blog That Accused It Of Cramming, Gets Blog Taken Down By ISP
What service?
What text message service does Jawa claim to provide?
On the post: What Does It Take For Mobile Operators To Care About SMS Cramming Scams?
Why?
Greed. Any questions?
On the post: Another Court Rejects Idea That DMCA Requires Proactive Approach From Service Providers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The city has multiple remedies already at its disposal for this problem. First, the people dealing drugs are breaking the law. Arrest them and charge them with that crime. Once you have charged them with the drug dealing crime, you can also add additional crimes for selling items not authorized by the permit, and probably for falsifying a permit (unless you think the drug dealer supplied his real name and contact info).
What you wouldn't do, is put a fence around the street corner and make everyone who wants to walk on it prove they are not selling drugs. You also would not tear up the sidewalk, or arrest the people living in the building the sidewalk is in front of without cause.
Now, lets talk about the "If you stand on a sidewalk with 99 drug dealers, and you are the only one selling apples" myth.
You seem to think that 99% of the content on Photobucket is infringing. Fine, prove it (since that is what the law requires). Tell you what, I'll make it easy on you. Find me 99 photobucket accounts that have infringing content, and I will match it with accounts that contain no infringing content. That would make it 50-50, not the 99-1 you think exists. Heck I'll bet I can find two non-infringers for every one you find. That would make it 99 drug dealers, and 198 apple dealers. Or should we start arresting apple dealers because they happen to sell apples near where drug dealers are selling drugs?
Oh wait, is finding 99 infringing accounts too much work for you? No problem, find me ten. Not only will I match your ten, I will still be able to find 99 non-infringing accounts. Balls in your court ...
On the post: Another Court Rejects Idea That DMCA Requires Proactive Approach From Service Providers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But they aren't a business "predicated" on copyright violation. I, and millions of others, use Photobucket and similar sites to share my photos with people. Some people may upload works that are infringing. That does not mean the business is "predicated on copyright violation."
If a drug dealer stands on sidewalk and deals drugs, is the sidewalk predicated on drug dealing?
If Microsoft released a version of Word that contains code which infringes someones copyright or patent, does that mean Microsoft is predicated on IP violations?
(Microsoft steal someone's IP? Unthinkable, right?)
Lets step aside a moment see if we can get Mr. Coward to understand why having Photobucket (or any site) do preemptive filtering is not only bad, but near impossible.
This is a nice picture of a bridge near where I live. http://bit.ly/fsCwls The photographer's work is copyrighted, and has a link on his site to request licensing.
If I walk from my house to the riverfront and take a picture of the bridge, have I violated his copyright?
What if the picture was taken from almost the exact same location? It would not be difficult for me to produce a photograph that I have taken with my own camera, in my hometown, which I own the copyright on, which almost exactly replicates the copyrighted photo. Is that infringing?
If I upload that picture to my Photobucket account, have I violated his copyright?
If a filter is implemented, as some copyright supporters suggest, how is the filter to differentiate between the professional photographers picture and mine? Both were taken from nearly the same location of the same subject, at the same time of day. Is my picture going to be automatically removed? I own the copyright. I took the picture with my camera. I edited it on my computer with software I own.
Any filter or other technological measure implemented to automate this process will invariably take down many works which are not infringing, but are in fact covered by their own copyright. By implementing a filter, you are asking service providers to implement a technological device which in effect, limits my ability to display, share and/or sell my copyrighted photo.
Not only is the filter nearly technologically impossible to create, but it will stifle creativity. If, as an amateur photographer, I get inspired by Ron Saari's work (the photographer linked above) and want to see if I can produce photos as nice as his, am I allowed to upload it to the internet so my photo-club can critique my work. If I am attempting, as an amateur enthusiast, to replicate his work, am I violating his copyright? I'm not selling his work, nor am I giving it away and competing with him. I am simply trying to learn from him, and have my photo-club colleagues offer tips/hints. Would this violate his copyright? Doubtful. Would your filter recognize that? Doubtful. Therein lies the problem. A technological filter, however intelligently created, will not be able to make this type of distinction. My only recourse then, as an amateur would be to hire a lawyer to protect my rights, as granted to me under copyright. Sounds like a great deal for an IP lawyer and almost nobody else.
On the post: Some Free Letter-Writing Advice For America's Toughest Sheriff
Re: Hmmm
Riiight. Everyone breaks the law. We have too many of them for you not to accidentally break a few.
"It is unlawful for any person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law or regulation of any state or any foreign law."
So its a Federal crime to have anything to do with any fish, wildlife or plant that is illegal anywhere in the world. Good luck with that ...
On the post: Leaving A Major Record Label... And Seeing How The Music Business Is Thriving
Entropy
From his post on leaving Warner
http://www.blackrimglasses.com/2011/01/27/leaving-wmg/
On the post: Confirmed: Chris Dodd Lies, Takes Top Lobbying Job, Promises To Trample Consumer Rights
Re:
^This. The record companies have lied and colluded to fix prices at astronomical levels even as production costs declined.
I purchase lots of music. I won't buy a CD at $17. I won't pay more than $7-8 for an MP3 album. I don't but anything from artists whose songs are priced $1.29 each. I might consider buying a used CD, but I am not giving them money when they are artificially inflating prices.
On the post: Senator Franken Defends Censoring The Internet Because He Doesn't Think Hollywood Should Have To Change Biz Models?
Why is anyone surprised?
Big businesses and the big unions give big money to their front men to conduct their business in Congress. Despite everything he said when running for office, Frankel is not a politician and is doing his master's bidding.
Next >>