the US Copyright Group is the one crippling the process, not this lawyer providing forms for people to help defend themselves.
USCG's extortive practices need to be severely punished. Their business model is predatory, using the scales of justice not to weigh the merits of the case, but to bludgeon people into submission.
Hopefully, the people will realize that the bullshit copyright laws we have on the books need to be repealed to prevent this kind of travesty in the future.
Expand fair use to include non-commercial infringement, and don't tax artists for the marketing benefits they receive from independent file sharers.
The RIAA's current business model relies on vicious criminals raping children on videotape. Without such heinous crimes, the RIAA has no argument to convince us that they deserve any special consideration.
It's disgusting that the RIAA would exploit underage victims just to try to convince people that their archaic business model should receive special protection under the law.
I fully support Mr. Brooks' effort to convince musicians to go on strike.
How about for more than a day? How about a week? I doubt that would be long enough for us to realize that no new music is getting out, though... Better make it at least a month... Probably closer to a year before people realize they haven't heard anything new.
Mr. Brooks forgets that there are people for whom earning millions isn't a necessity; earning a comfortable, living wage is sufficient.
Presently, the record labels are the ones who decide whether an artist will be able to earn a living wage. They only retain artists that they know they can make money off of, and send everyone else packing.
Eliminating the record-label choke-points will allow far more artists to earn a living wage, although it will probably hurt many of the superstars, like Mr. Brooks. Frankly, I'd rather hear the music of someone who's passion is the music, not the money. That person gets my attention, and my dollar.
I can handle this... If public practice is to regularly drive 5 over the limit, and on this particular road, people are driving 25 over the limit, perhaps the speed limit of 25 should be raised to 45.
I've got this situation just up the street from me: a "back road" - in an area where all back roads are limited at 45 - is limited at 25. People regularly drive 45-50 on this road because it is as safe to do so on this road as every other road of this type. The only reason it is at 25 is because it forms the border of the city, so city rules apply instead of county rules.
In my region, the rule applies to any road a certain distance from a school. In a particular area, the school owns a swamp behind a high school. On the other side of the swamp is a major road, and on the other side of that, a river.
There won't be any pedestrians approaching this road from either side, due to the swamp and the river.
But, because the road is within a certain distance of the high school itself, it must have a reduced speed in the morning and afternoon.
To add insult to injury, a quarter mile down the road there is a bridge over the river where teens and kids cross on their way to that school and an elementary school. Because of its distance, it doesn't merit school-zone status, and kids are left to fend for themselves on public roads.
The rule is applied and enforced despite the invalidity of the reason and despite public practice. The net effect of the rule is to contribute to rush hour congestion. There is no protective benefit of this rule being applied in this location.
Of course, this is the exception, not the rule. It is, however, an excellent example of bad public policy.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by rival.
Re: Re: Re:
It's immoral for an artist to ask his audience for help in distributing his works?
Dude, stop drinking the copyright industry's Kool-aid.
And while you're at it, stop drinking the church's Kool-aid.
He's not crippling the court
the US Copyright Group is the one crippling the process, not this lawyer providing forms for people to help defend themselves.
USCG's extortive practices need to be severely punished. Their business model is predatory, using the scales of justice not to weigh the merits of the case, but to bludgeon people into submission.
Hopefully, the people will realize that the bullshit copyright laws we have on the books need to be repealed to prevent this kind of travesty in the future.
Expand fair use to include non-commercial infringement, and don't tax artists for the marketing benefits they receive from independent file sharers.
The RIAA's current business model relies on vicious criminals raping children on videotape. Without such heinous crimes, the RIAA has no argument to convince us that they deserve any special consideration.
It's disgusting that the RIAA would exploit underage victims just to try to convince people that their archaic business model should receive special protection under the law.
I fully support Mr. Brooks' effort to convince musicians to go on strike.
How about for more than a day? How about a week? I doubt that would be long enough for us to realize that no new music is getting out, though... Better make it at least a month... Probably closer to a year before people realize they haven't heard anything new.
Mr. Brooks forgets that there are people for whom earning millions isn't a necessity; earning a comfortable, living wage is sufficient.
Presently, the record labels are the ones who decide whether an artist will be able to earn a living wage. They only retain artists that they know they can make money off of, and send everyone else packing.
Eliminating the record-label choke-points will allow far more artists to earn a living wage, although it will probably hurt many of the superstars, like Mr. Brooks. Frankly, I'd rather hear the music of someone who's passion is the music, not the money. That person gets my attention, and my dollar.
Re: Re:
I can handle this... If public practice is to regularly drive 5 over the limit, and on this particular road, people are driving 25 over the limit, perhaps the speed limit of 25 should be raised to 45.
I've got this situation just up the street from me: a "back road" - in an area where all back roads are limited at 45 - is limited at 25. People regularly drive 45-50 on this road because it is as safe to do so on this road as every other road of this type. The only reason it is at 25 is because it forms the border of the city, so city rules apply instead of county rules.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In my region, the rule applies to any road a certain distance from a school. In a particular area, the school owns a swamp behind a high school. On the other side of the swamp is a major road, and on the other side of that, a river.
There won't be any pedestrians approaching this road from either side, due to the swamp and the river.
But, because the road is within a certain distance of the high school itself, it must have a reduced speed in the morning and afternoon.
To add insult to injury, a quarter mile down the road there is a bridge over the river where teens and kids cross on their way to that school and an elementary school. Because of its distance, it doesn't merit school-zone status, and kids are left to fend for themselves on public roads.
The rule is applied and enforced despite the invalidity of the reason and despite public practice. The net effect of the rule is to contribute to rush hour congestion. There is no protective benefit of this rule being applied in this location.
Of course, this is the exception, not the rule. It is, however, an excellent example of bad public policy.