Record industry old-timers I know have told me lurid tales of "the front door" and "the back door" of pressing plants.
The people who ran the plant would press a certain number of records and send them out "the front door" to be counted by the client/artist. A whole 'nother number went out "the back door" to be sold off the books, with the artists seeing nothing on the books. In extreme cases, it was a the record company itself selling off the books.
If you should still want the component items in the above mentioned elaborate hoax, they will be available separately at a more affordable price in the New Year, unless you are one of those pirates who imagines they are evangelists or that other people’s rights absolve their own thievery, in which case this is between you and your dim conscience.
So that's his record company AND the pirates told, then.
Sen. Schumer (D NY) wrote back to me on November 2:
Dear Mr. xxxxxxxx
Thank you for your contacting me in opposition to S.968, the PROTECT IP Act. Like you, I believe that consumers should have access to a vibrant and innovative online community to discuss their ideas and opinions. At the same time, we must not let the internet become a haven for intellectual property thieves.
The threat to intellectual property owners over the internet is clear. Every year, the US Chamber of Commerce estimates that copyright theft costs our nation about $58 billion in lost output, 373,375 in lost jobs, and $16 billion in lost employee earnings. These numbers present an unacceptable burden to US businesses. In addition, companies may be less likely to innovate because their products may be stolen by intellectual property pirates, creating a drag on the US economy.
The PROTECT IP Act addresses the problem of intellectual property theft online, but it also contains important due process protections to ensure that legal activity over the internet is not disrupted. As you may know, the PROTECT IP Act would allow the Department of Justice to file a claim against a website that 1) has no significant purpose other than engaging in or facilitating copyright infringement, circumventing technology controlling access to copyrighted works, or selling or promoting counterfeit goods or services; or (2) is designed, operated, or marketed and used to engage in such activities. A judge would have to find that a website is intentionally violating intellectual property rights of an American entity before he could issue an order against that site. I believe PROTECT IP Act would provide law enforcement and intellectual property holders additional tools to protect American intellectual property from websites while still ensuring the constitutionally protected rights of free speech and due process. The PROTECT IP Act currently is awaiting action on the floor of the Senate, and I will continue to monitor this bill as it moves through the Senate.
Thank you for contacting me on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can ever be of assistance to you on this, or any other matter.
Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator
Interestingly, this is the exact same boilerplate I got when I wrote about PROTECT IP at the end of August. It appears that he is so bought and paid for that he is not even bothering to update his responses.
My other senator (Kirsten E. Gillibrand D, NY) said thanks for the contact but did not even send a boilerplate response. My Representative (Hinchey, NY 22) has not responded in any way to my contact, although as I recall he has had a pretty decent record on 'net affairs.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by markzip.