It’s apparent that song-writers want to get paid simply for writing songs, regardless of whether anyone wants to buy those songs (or even hear them). If they really want to go back to the “good old days”, then they can go back to the patron system: you get paid only what someone thinks your “art” is worth (which is where the term “starving artist” really comes from). I stopped buying music over a decade ago *because* the “music” industry decided to start treating *everyone* as a criminal; the industry has gotten worse since then. If the industry had actually been paying attention, it would have noticed that music “sharing” (theft, piracy, or whatever term you want to use) has resulted in more sales (because most people *aren’t* criminals), has essentially been a form of advertising (free advertising, in fact) for the industry. I don’t ignore the music industry now because there’s no music worth listening to (though much of it isn’t); I ignore it because the people who run the industry just don’t deserve my money. They can take their copyrights, and their “art”, and stick ’em where the sun don’t shine.

The members of the RIAA have been screwing songwriters and artists for generations. Ask any of the old groups when the last time was that they saw a check. The MPAA screws everyone by creative accounting. They keep saying that movies aren’t making any money and then make a sequel.

Tell me how Net Neutrality is theft? The market will always dictate the final direction as it ebbs and flows. You can constrict at one point, and another method will ultimately be developed. This is the natural course of history. Industrialists favored the profit motive while factory workers fought back and unionized.

Don’t be mistaken; the industrialist mentality and it’s constant, ever-seeking profit motive won’t provide The Industry with a state of certainty unless it’s either subsidized by The State, or the very legal framework and free will is removed from the equation. But often, the market decides through it’s own ways. However, it seems they prefer the former to the latter.

I imagine that a better set of answers will point to a different discussion; as it appears Big Content is about to go through a relatively large industry restructuring pending the Comcast-NBC merger. The comments on the FCC website resonate of this.

But at the end of the day, we very well may have additional rights and liberties chipped away by industry apologists who are deemed “too big to fail”.

A sidenote on this: Too Big To Fail subsequently, and really means: "We have acquired a blank check from DC though our use of political ties"

But you have to take into account those who ignore the will of the market and believe that creating a better mousetrap on the coat tails of legalism will bring their company to the land of milk and honey. Understand that these mere mortals, only prolong their inevitable fate.

Someday soon, I imagine marketers of entertainment product will look to the “tiers état” as something more than a missing ATM reciept in their records. Until then, we will remain living in a class system with faintly blurred lines.

To the RIAA/MPAA and their confederates:

“I know you’re out there. I can feel you now. You’re afraid. You’re afraid of us. You’re afraid of change. I didn’t come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how this is going to begin. I’m going to hang up this phone, and them I’m going to show these people what you don’t want them to see. A world without you. A world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries. A world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.”

Heed Neo’s words, entertainment industry, or fade into the past forever.

as a new lawyer in the entertainment industry, and a strident campaigner for net neutrality, i kind of want to say ‘fuck you’ to the gross generalizations made in this truncated article