Brazil Looks To Criminalize Ripping A CD?
from the how-quickly-they've-fallen dept
Over the past few years, it really looked like Brazil was close to becoming one of the most progressive countries on copyright issues. It was embracing fair use and the public domain in a strong way, and was even considering proposals to fully legalize file sharing. And, of course, the music industry is thriving in Brazil as well, in part due to the embracing of free distribution. The government had also embraced open culture in a variety of ways, even using Creative Commons licenses on government websites.
How quickly things change.
Within months of a new administration coming to town, the new Culture Minister, ordered the Creative Commons license off of the Ministry’s website. When asked why, she said “We will discuss copyright reform when the time comes.” But having a CC license on a webpage has nothing to do with copyright reform. However, it was a warning sign that such efforts were coming, and rather than continuing the progress made in the country, the new administration was looking to go in the other direction.
Now it appears that we’re seeing some of those efforts in action. The country is considering a broad new “cybercrime” bill, that, among other things, will criminalize both file sharing and ripping a CD to a computer. File sharing may involve infringement, but at a civil, not criminal level. The fact that the government seems to be going much further is ridiculous — especially at a time when the Brazilian technobrega scene has demonstrated so clearly how an entire musical culture can thrive (and make lots of money) without even using copyright (and even actively ignoring it and encouraging the widespread sharing of works).
Filed Under: brazil, copyright, cybercrime, file sharing, ripping
Comments on “Brazil Looks To Criminalize Ripping A CD?”
Wouldn’t it be great to follow the money trail from brazil to the origin. It would be interesting to know how many people had their hands in the pot and how much the pot was all together.
Obviously the MAFIAA was the origin of the money, but how many politicians in this country and abroad were involved.
Re: Re:
Follow the money trail? If Hollywood has taught us anything, it’s usually some evil rich white guy at the end.
In this case I’m betting on Mitch Bainwol.
Re: Re: Re:
Wrong Mitch.
That will teach the idiot Brazilian technobrega types a simple lesson, donate money to the election funds of the politicians!
ABOLISH IP!!!!!
Re: Re:
Wouldn’t that break the internet?
Re: Re: Re:
Not that kind of IP – the other kind.
It would appear that the new administration has been bought and paid for. Actually, considering the speed of things, they were likely pre-purchased.
Re: Re:
The MPAA went down there to purchase their form of democratization
Mainly, set up a bureaucracy that is anathema to the freedoms that Brazil had.
Re: Re:
Mike is talking about the PL 84/89 (PL translates roughly as law project, some sort of draft) widely known as “Lei Azeredo” that was proposed by Senator Eduardo Azeredo (an arsehole who reeks of tech ignorance).
And this is very far from new, they only resurrected it after the latest broad scale attacks from lulzsec and the likes against several sites, some of them targeted Government sites. So they are using collective hysteria and a nice amount of media misleading news (hackers are pretty much any1 that can successfully turn on a computer and they are all evil and the State is at fault for not providing security – bla bla bla, always the same bs) all to push the PL into effective law.
It has failed a few times already but as all MAFIAA related stuff it keeps coming back to life. And that because lobby is forbidden in Brazil. Imagine if it wasn’t.
So Mike, please fix it, it’s not a ‘broad new’ law but rather a ‘reanimated corpse’ law. As always, no1 wants it, there is no need for it (considering the way Brazil IS heading – towards open and fair use), current laws already deal with online crimes just fine but MAFIAA needs further police powers. Except this time they are pushing for real criminalization, it’s worse than on most countries. If sanity prevails as it has been prevailing they’ll fail, yet again.
It really makes you wonder how easy it would be for the content companies to outright rule a country using their unlimited government-secured funds as a weapon.
I mean actually rule a country and not silently buy off politicians until the country is effectively yours.
Re: Re:
i’ve often wondered that. a company like exxonmobil or walmart could probably afford to buy many third world nations. how long will it be before a corporation takes full, open control of a sovereign nation.
Legislative Capture
This is a fine example of legislative capture. It is a fairly clear indication that the new administration is actually a bunch of crooks. Unpleasant things can be expected for the Brazilian economy. Hopefully, the Brazilian electorate is paying attention.
Re: Legislative Capture
A huge portion of the Brazilian are not active politically. And most of those are also ignorant towards what’s happening, which is sad. The new administration is actually doing much better than many of us thought it would after Lula. As I said above, this ‘law’ is from the Lula era and it was smashed more than once before being resurrected.
They will just rip CD's anyways...
In the US, it is illegal to rip DVD’s and blu-rays because of the DMCA, yet people do it all the time. I don’t see how this new law will be an issue for brazillians, as there is no good way to enforce the law short of requiring all computers to have some sort of monitoring tool that tells the government everything you do. (That would actually mean the MAFIAA wins for being able to identify infringers, the government, for having the surveillance which would no doubt be used for other purposes, and even ISP’s win because more people will exceed data ca
Re: They will just rip CD's anyways...
Actually, it is not illegal. It is one of the exceptions to the DMCA. Even before the exception was added, the legality was iffy (i.e., untested). Fair use allows it; DMCA does not. Which law takes priority?
Re: Re: They will just rip CD's anyways...
With the DMCA, you are not allowed to circumvent copy protection even if what you want to do is covered by fair use.
Re: Re: Re: They will just rip CD's anyways...
so? who cares. The DMCA like the EULA, nothing but lawyer smut
Re: Re: Re: They will just rip CD's anyways...
You are not allowed to circumvent effective copy protection. CSS was broken long ago and the tools to do so are readily available. Regardless, as I said, ripping DVDs is one of the exceptions to the DMCA added by the US Copyright Office.
Re: Re: Re:2 They will just rip CD's anyways...
Actually, you are not allowed to circumvent any such measures, effective or not.
However, not all DVDs use copy pretection. Those that don’t are perfectly legal to copy, with the usual restrictions (all copies and the original are to be treated as a single unit, so if you give, sell, or loan the title out you must include the original and all copies).
Re: Re: Re:3 They will just rip CD's anyways...
I don’t give a shit what the law says, or your interpretation of it. I’ll do whatever I want, and if you don’t like it, come see me. Then you can inventory your remaining body parts afterward, so you’ll have a clear idea how many visits it will take before you won’t be getting out much anymore. Bitches!
Illegal in the UK
It is illegal to rip a CD in the UK.
it really looked like Brazil was close to becoming one of the most progressive countries on copyright issues.
Translation: ignoring copyright law.
Y’know, cuz it’s important your readers can leech off the works of others.
You’re such a worthless slimeball, Masnick.
Re: Re:
^^
See troll bait.
See troll hide in shadows.
See troll pounce on victim!
Pounce, troll, pounce!
Re: Re:
LOL, there is nothing you can do.
If I can beat our fascist government and find ways to bypass and completely ignore their extensive internet monitoring. I sure as hell can beat some lawyer in a expensive suit looking for more money. Mao couldn’t stop us, and neither can you
Re: Re: Re:
Stop you from being what? An unknown douchebag in a very large universe?
You’re right. They can’t stop that. And apparently neither can you.
But at least you’ll have some company here with the rest of your fellow TD posters.
Your lives are meaningless. That’s why you’re so angry.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But at least you’ll have some company here with the rest of your fellow TD posters.
Wait… Aren’t you a TD poster?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And why are you so angry?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
…and the irony is OFF THE CHARTS folks!
it’s what ALOT of people think about the MAFIAA, IP/patent/copyright supporters
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And that attitude right there is exactly why people don’t buy things from you LoL
Re: Re:
The fact that you are incapable of providing a more coherent, evidence-based argument undermines your position, AC #11, as do your actions. Personal attacks will never convince anyone, so do not use them. Nor will unsupported arguments.
Re: Re: Re:
You are quickly becoming my favorite poster. Of course, it may be because I’m a Spock fanboy and I hear his voice when I read your posts. It makes me smile.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most kind, Rich. Thank you. And I would agree, Alien Bard, that the only thing personal attacks can accomplish is distraction.
On the issue of copy protection, if the technology has rendered it useless, which it has, then any laws forbidding it are both irrelevant and ineffective. It is technology and what it enables that should define the laws concerning it, and not the other way around.
Re: Re: For no good reason,
Just to pick at the point…
Mud slinging may not convince people of the validity of an argument, but it is proven very effective in distracting them from the flaws. It also distracts the audience from the validity of the opponents arguments.
That said, it still remains true that personal attacks are the last civil refuge of the incompetent.
Re: Re:
excuse me? copyrightists have been leeching off the works of others since the law was implemented
Re: Re: Re:
so back to your “meaningless angry lives” point, that’s you, copyright supporters, utterly meaningless without the government propping up crutches to keep your failboat floating & completely angry because you know it’s true
about the only thing you’ve got going for yourselves these days is fucking everyone else over, leeching off royalty welfare and scapegoating anyone who doesn’t just bow down to whatever you say
copyrightists are a cancer on this earth
Re: Re:
“Translation: ignoring copyright law.”
Ignoring US copyright law. Last time I checked the US didn’t rule the world, though many of its citizens seem to think it does. And just because something is a law doesn’t mean it’s correct. That’s why the courts are allowed to overturn laws.
“You’re such a worthless slimeball, Masnick.”
Oh, name-calling. Well, that convinced me that you’re right! Your logic is impeccable.
And now it is time to roll back the foreskin of ignorance and apply the wire brush of enlightenment.
Re: Individual Liberties are out of style...
> Y’know, cuz it’s important your readers can leech off the works of others.
That’s exactly how the creative process works. However, that has nothing to do with the situation in Brazil.
PAYING CUSTOMERS are having their property rights stripped from them. The situation has nothing to do with “leeching”.
Re: Said twice for effect
it really looked like Brazil was close to becoming one of the most progressive countries on copyright issues.
Translation: ignoring copyright law.
Y’know, cuz it’s important your readers can leech off the works of others.
You’re such a worthless slimeball, Masnick.
very well put +10
Re: Re:
Y’know, cuz it’s important your readers can leech off the works of others.
Yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact that Brazilian musicians made a lot more money by “ignoring copyright law.”
Those damn musicians! Leeches, all of them! What worthless slimeballs!
Thank god my life isn’t meaningless, or I’d be really angry about it.
Re: Re: Re:
how who?larious…
Re: Leeches, every goddamn one of you!
leech off the works of others
Here’s a quote from a blog post by one of those “leeches:”
– quoted in Brazil: Amplified conversations to fight the Digital Crimes Bill from Global Voices Online.
Goddamn leeches with their “demonstrations” and their concerns about “the monopoly of power.” How fucking dare they! We all know that “exercising our citizenship” is just a code word for “piracy.” Everyone knows that if you give people freedom of choice, the only thing they’ll choose to do is rip off my employers^H^H^H^H artists!
Re: Re: Leeches, every goddamn one of you!
who?
Re: Re:
I do with my paid for CDs as I please. Lawyers and especially shilltards like you be damned!
Re: Re:
“Translation: ignoring copyright law.”
How is a discussion on how Brazil is attempting to set up copyright rules more restrictive than the US “ignoring it”?
“Y’know, cuz it’s important your readers can leech off the works of others.”
From what I can see, the main objection is to the criminalisation of ripping CDs you’ve already bought. Please supply your superior reasoning to tell me how ripping CDs you’ve paid for constitutes “leeching”, since nobody else can see it.
“You’re such a worthless slimeball, Masnick.”
Once. Just once, try to formulate an argument that is based on logic and doesn’t resort to baseless personal attacks. You’d be surprised at how well they’re received.
“Brazil Looks To Criminalize Ripping A CD?“
I think the law is hip and retro. Who doesn’t remember ripping CDs way back in the 90s? It was fun.
However, if they actually intend to enforce the statute, it’ll need about a two decade long statute of limitations.
so did this woman say what she was going to do at election time? has she done the exact opposite to what she said? who was donating to her election campaign?
CD the Ripper
Seems like time is flowing backwards in Brazil.
New versions of iTunes and other software
So now MS, Apple and others will have to redo their software to remove this feature for Brazilian market sales?
Or at the very least, relabel the “import CD” buttons to “Perform criminal act.”
Re: New versions of iTunes and other software
Totally. Not even the RIAA wants to sue people for ripping CDs (sharing songs with friends, that’s another matter). This proposal will make Brazil’s copyright law even more restrictive than what the RIAA wants. It’s repugnant and contrary to Brazil’s motto “Ordem e Progresso” (“Order and Progress”). Now, it’ll be just “Ordem” (“Order”).
Re: Re: ?Intellectual property? is an oxymoron.
“Not even the RIAA wants to sue people for ripping CDs”
I think you should reconsider this, or at least rephrase it. Saying that the RIAA does not want to criminalize the ripping of CDs is like saying that anti-abortionist don’t won’t to outlaw birth control.
(http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/08/02/135422/-Wisconsin-attempts-to-ban-birth-control ;
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2006/03/20/anti_contraception)
Of course they do. They?re just aware that it would hurt their current and more achievable goals if they were to openly state this fact.
The RIAA only settled for a surcharge on blank cassettes in the ’80s because outlawing the taping of vinyl albums, and/or tape decks, wasn’t an achievable goal.
Never assume that today’s tyranny is the final destination to which your oppressors plan to drive you at the end of a whip.
?Intellectual property? is an oxymoron.
Re: Re: Re: ?Intellectual property? is an oxymoron.
Where I got that idea was from here where one of the bylines on the cover is “The RIAA doesn’t want to sue you (at least not for ripping CDs)”.
However, I confess that I have not read the article (not the article in the PDF, I read that so many times), so that is all I know about it and made assumptions around the premise. Would the RIAA want to put the toothpaste of DRM-free music on all music stores and CD-ripping back in the tube? It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if that’s the case.
However, if the RIAA can’t put the proverbial toothpaste back in the tube up here, how would they expect it to be done in Brazil, where it is proven that sensible — not overly restrictive — copyright law has proven good for the economy?
Re: Re: Re:2 ?Intellectual property? is an oxymoron.
Thanks for the link. The article (dated Jan. 12, 2008) in the pdf looks interesting. I was unable to find the article referenced by the cover blurb, but I did find this article dated Dec. 30,2007 from the Washington Post that reports…
“In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.”
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html)
Both Kazaa and the destruction of evidence were involved in the case which centered on the “making available” issue. It’s a bit murky if the RIAA was claiming that ripping alone was illegal or if it was the combo of ripping/making available. I found no reference to the final outcome.
Bottom line is they have played with the claim that ripping a purchased CD is illegal in the past, so I doubt it’s been scratched from their wish list entirely.
Re: Re: Re:3 ?Intellectual property? is an oxymoron.
Hmmm…I think what seems to be the case is that the RIAA WOULD like to sue over CD-ripping more often than not, but they’re up against some pretty powerful tech companies (Microsoft, Apple, etc.) who have enabled DRM-free CD-ripping, so I guess when I said “the RIAA doesn’t want to sue people for ripping CDs”, I guess I should have said “The RIAA has given up the fight over making a big deal over suing people for CDs” because it realized that it has lost that battle.
Re: Re: Re:4 ?Intellectual property? is an oxymoron.
Just curious if you are aware of any circumstance where a music label has filed suit against an individual for making a single, personal copy of a music CD lawfully purchased by the individual? E.g., clone the CD as a backup, convert to MP3 or other compressed format, etc.
Re: Re: Re:5 ?Intellectual property? is an oxymoron.
Just curious if you are aware of any circumstance where a music label has filed suit against an individual for making a single, personal copy of a music CD lawfully purchased by the individual?
They have not, because they know it would lose in court. The Sony ruling explicitly held that making personal copies was fair use under the law (as long as you don’t distribute those copies to someone else).
They have, however, sued people who downloaded digital versions of CD’s that they already bought – and the court, sadly, agreed that it was infringement. I’ll have to dig up the case, though.
Re: Re: Re:6 ?Intellectual property? is an oxymoron.
Ah, that explains everything. Thanks, Karl!
Re: Re: Re:6 ?Intellectual property? is an oxymoron.
“They have not, because they know it would lose in court. The Sony ruling explicitly held that making personal copies was fair use under the law (as long as you don’t distribute those copies to someone else).”
The majority in Sony v. Universal made it quite clear this was not an issue it was deciding.
Would be nice to read a tranlated copy of the legislation giving rise to this article. Right now all you have is TD referencing EFF, which in turn references a site known as Digital Convergence, which in turn references an article ostensibly prepared by an organization known as IDEC.
The best evidence of what a document says is the document itself, and not a string of references that are hearsay, upon hearsay, upon hearsay, etc.
Re: Why a translation?
Why a translation? Just point to the original.
Re: Re:
silly rabbit, facts are of no matter when dealing with propaganda.
Re: Re: Re:
says the shilltard.
Thye trouble is that such a “monitoring tool” could easily be defeated. They would have to outlaw firewalls.
I know this becuase back in the 1990s, I had trouble with the kids of one housekeeper I had that would try to get my computer started, but I could use a pirated CyberSitter, which I did back in the 1990s, but using a firewall to keep their “tattle tale” device from being able to report anything back to Solid Oak. All I had to do is have the firewall tell me what was going on, and when I saw the tattle-tale system that existed in CyberSiter ’97 try to get out, I merely told my firewall to block it.
That is why such monitoring systems would never work, without outlawing firewalls, otherwise people could defeat monitoring by blocking it with their firewalls.
They will never learn. Fight the elite.
Greed
It grieves me the degree that selfishness and greed have multiplied in recent years, and especially in the corporate arena. This idea of, “It’s MINE! And you can’t have it unless I (we) get a huge chunk of money out of it” attitude turns me off big time. It’s not the way I was raised. Call me old fashioned if you want, but things were a lot better when people shared things freely.
People who have and insist on enforcing this “It’s MINE!” attitude only hurt themselves in the long run. The RIAA has enforced this attitude with vengeance in recent years and what has it gotten them? A fast trip into the tank for CD sales. Suing your customers is no way to drum up business. You’ll only drive them off. I for one will not touch anything with an RIAA label on it.
Read the article! Brazil allows sharing and their music business is prospering. The claims of business lost to sharing made by the RIAA and MPAA are grossly exaggerated and vastly inflated and everybody knows it. First off sharing gives valuable exposure, which helps to increase sales. Secondly those who download illegally probably wouldn’t have bought the CD in the first place, so nothing was lost. And the entertainment industry is full of Luddites who have fought every new technology that has come along, making unsubstantiated claims that it is going to destroy their business, only to discover it opened up vast new areas of business when it was allowed.
Tying down the pressure relief valve on a steam engine will get you a quick trip to the hereafter, and likewise over-zealous enforcement of “rights” is only ultimately going to turn people against you and hurt your business.
Brasil's Reasons
1) Ripping = Ripping Off ! It’s not ripping off the Big-Bad-Corporations, so much as stealing someone’s labor. Ripping, Pirating, Bootlegging ; whatever you want to call it is immoral bercause it deprives the artist the money that is deserved for their talents. The fact that ‘technology exists’ doesn’t make it right. Imagine a CD that coiuld sell 1 million copies, but instead only sells 1,000, amd each is ‘ripped’ 1,000 times. What if YOU were the artist?
2) Brasil has many poor people that need housing and to be educated, ect. By allowing ripping, their government is deprived of their fair share of revenue, via TAXES. If you are a person of faith, you may want to re-read Mark 12:17 “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”
Re: Brasil's Reasons
Funny. You seriously believe that the money from sale of CDs goes to the artists? If an artist is lucky they might get 1% of the money from sales. And does Brazil even tax CDs?
Re: Re: Brasil's Reasons
I got a large royalty check today from a record company for my involvement with an album. It was accompanied by a thing known as a royalty statement.
Now, please tell us again about your real-world experiences with record labels…
Oh wait, you don’t have any.
You’re talking out of your anus again.
Silly me, I forgot that you’re a meaningless, worthless no-contribution-to-society-whatsoever leech that goes on pirate forums espousing retarded rationalizations for his illegal and amoral behavior in feeding his incurable content addiction.
Re: Re: Re: Brasil's Reasons
“I got a large royalty check today from a record company for my involvement with an album.”
And naturally, you want that to continue. I can understand, I’m sure you would have wanted for vinyl to continue too if it made you money. Government intervention and all
Re: Re: Re: Brasil's Reasons
Ah! You’re just proving my point. See my post above.
Re: Re: Re: Brasil's Reasons
Would you care to provide a scan of that check to prove your honesty, AC #51? If you do not, your argument is invalid because you have failed to back it up with evidence. And again, personal attacks will never help you in convincing anyone. Don’t use them unless you wish to be immediately dismissed.
And AC #48, most artists never making anything off of CD sales, as has been well established time and again. The labels take everything and go out of their way to make certain most bands will never recoup. So your arguments are flawed and incorrect.
Re: Re: Re: Brasil's Reasons
Assuming what you are saying is the real truth and that you are not simply a paid shill, your single exception does nothing to invalidate the claims of all the other contributors who have NOT been compensated by the record company. Your claim also does nothing to negate the growing evidence that your cheque would be significantly larger without draconian IP laws. (Please note that my statement does not advocate a complete dismissal of IP, simply a reduction in current aggression levels.)
Re: Re: Re: Brasil's Reasons
Let me guess you received a $100 and that is huge correct?
Re: Re: Re: Brasil's Reasons
I got a large royalty check today from a record company for my involvement with an album. It was accompanied by a thing known as a royalty statement.
Frankly, I don’t believe you, at least not if you’re talking about royalties from record sales.
According to the labels themselves, 90% of musicians on major labels are “unrecouped.” Until they are “recouped,” they will never see any royalties from record sales. And this figure has been quoted for decades – even in the late ’90’s and early 2000’s, when the major labels were making more than they had been in their entire history.
Now, artists may see royalties from other sources, especially if they’re a songwriter as well as a performer. Mechanical royalties, for instance – but those are paid when the recordings are manufactured, not when they’re sold. Royalties from terrestrial radio or SoundExchange are also not dependent upon record sales.
You also don’t usually get royalties (or own any part of the recording) if you’re a session musician; you get paid “union scale.”
So, about the only way you could be telling the truth, is if you’re a record producer who gets “record one” royalties – royalties off of every record sold, regardless of whether the album is recouped or not. Only “superstar” producers get record one royalties, and I somehow doubt that you’re Quincy Jones.
Of course, that’s for artists in America, so the other possibility is that you’re a foreigner. However, from the very little I’ve been able to dig up from the websites of ECAD and ABPD, things work the same way in Brazil.
Silly me, I forgot that you’re a meaningless, worthless no-contribution-to-society-whatsoever leech that goes on pirate forums espousing retarded rationalizations for his illegal and amoral behavior in feeding his incurable content addiction.
No, he’s not a record label executive. What on Earth gave you that idea?
Re: Re: Re:2 Brasil's Reasons
I don’t give a fuck if you believe me or not, you ridiculous asshat, it’s a FACT.
Re: Re: Re:3 Brasil's Reasons
I don’t give a fuck if you believe me or not, you ridiculous asshat, it’s a FACT.
Given Karl’s numerous points, could you at the very least suggest what kind of royalties you got? Were they for record sales on a recouped album? Or for something else?
Re: Re: Re:4 Brasil's Reasons
Given Karl’s numerous points, could you at the very least suggest what kind of royalties you got? Were they for record sales on a recouped album? Or for something else?
Now now, let’s not be hasty. Let’s assume that this guy is telling the truth.
If so, he’s one of the VERY few musicians who has been able to earn any money whatsoever from record sales. This is quite a rare bird; we should listen to what he says. After all, I am an artist, and many of my friends are artists, and whatever we can do to earn a living off of music will be welcome (since most of us don’t under contract).
So, tell us, my friend. How is it that you got royalties from record sales, when zero percent of my friends (even those on a major label) managed to do so? You obviously are a smarter businessman than the folks I know, so we would all be very grateful for a primer.
Details, please. I’d like to think that you’re actually telling the truth, and have found that golden ticket which allows you to collect royalties from record sales. Or are you just a douchebag who is wasting everyone’s time? It would be very disappointing if you were.
Re: Re: Re:3 Brasil's Reasons
Mmh, that of course raises the far more important question: do you *really* think that anyone here give’s a fuck about you? I mean, seriously?
Re: Re: Re:3 Brasil's Reasons
Religious logic. It seems to be fashionable these days, it’s being used everywhere…
Re: Brasil's Reasons
“Ripping, Pirating, Bootlegging ; whatever you want to call it is immoral bercause it deprives the artist the money that is deserved for their talents.”
So I buy a CD and rip it to my computer so I can transfer it to my iPod, allowing me to enjoy my paid-for music anywhere I want. Explain to all of us exactly how that deprives anybody of anything.
Also note that ripping, pirating and bootlegging are three quite different activities, and the article is only about ripping.
Sounds like
the newly elected politicians got some very nice contributions from the recording industry people, just like the politicians in the U.S. Wonder what scale of money you need to “contribute” to get the right votes in Brazil compared to the U.S.
Commie Clampdown
What do you expect from a Marxist Commie like Dilma Rousseff? She wants power and control like all Central Planning Socialist/Commies. Commies are easily swayed to see the Central Control Model as the correct way to do things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilma_Rousseff
One of her dirt bag cohorts has already resigned due to “illegally enriching himself through consulting contracts”. Rousseff, as a Commie, is in Control Mode and working with the RIAA, MAFIAA and any other Central Control Model organization, it’s in her blood.
In Brazil laws are bought, not made.
This shows that leftist rulers however they get their power are NOT about helping the poor, they are about CONTROL. That’s why Karl Marx wanted central banks: control over fiat money to bring the body politic to poverty so they’ll demand their demagogues to loot the rich. But in the end the leftists squeeze all they can from the poor to guarantee their patrons’ loot. Like George Soros and offshore drilling in Brazil, since we’re talking about Brazil.