It’s amazing how people actually think this woman did something wrong. The thieves are not her, but the record companies and organizations like the IFPI.

In a Counterpunch article, musician David Rovics says organizations like the IFPI and the RIAA are thieves. He says they are frightened because the Internet subverts the music industry’s monopoly.

The RIAA wants to determine what music you listen to, since profits are easier to collect from a small number of musicians. The RIAA chooses only a handful of groups, and lets all other musicians starve.

The issue is not CD sales, and not royalties, but control of content, and of overall music supply. The RIAA wants to be the only source of music. It wants a total monopoly -- not only on sales, but on creative content. The Internet upsets their horrendous monopoly. It lets you hear what YOU want to hear.

RIAA personnel spout propaganda that is the exact opposite of the truth. For example, the RIAA claims that small musicians are hurt by the Internet. In reality, small musicians vitally depend on the Internet. It's the only way they can ever get heard. The RIAA only wants a handful of musicians to be successful. It crushes all others.

Only the biggest stars get any appreciable money from CD sales (90% of all the profits go to the record producers and the RIAA). Most musicians make their living through live performances. Musicians only get live gigs if their music is first heard by the public. Their music only gets heard through the Internet. It will never be heard through the RIAA monopoly.

When we buy a CD, most of us like only one or two songs on it, but we must pay for the entire CD. Internet file sharing, however, lets us choose only the songs that have quality. The RIAA doesn’t like that. It wants you to buy an entire CD.

CD sales of big stars (chosen by the RIAA) are not hurt by Internet sharing. People buy CDs because the RIAA and the record companies take out massive advertising in everything from magazines to subway walls. The mass media gives free publicity to these stars.

Again, this is not about CD sales, or even royalties. It is about controlling which artists you get to hear. If you are allowed to hear any artist you like, the RIAA cannot make a huge profit. The RIAA only wants a small number of artists to exist, under direct RIAA control. That's why it attacks people like this woman. The monopoly holders want to drive fear into everyone.

The incredible thing is that most people agree with the monopoly holders! They say the woman was wrong. The jury also said she was wrong. Why? Because in this world, might makes right (at least among stupid people).

Source:

http://www.counterpunch.com/rovics10092007.html

We're not abandoning any part of any generation, but we understand our opportunity to talk to 12-year-olds is better than it is to talk to anybody already engaged in the practice," he said.

This is typical gestapo crap...common over $9,000 for one lousy song that is the most outrageous violation of civil law. This copyright crap is nothing more than NAZI control and our law enforcement system is not better from gestapo. That jury are bunch of dumb&dumberer idiots.

I am sure that all of them (unless they are over 200 years old) have shared something on net and they hypocritically prosecute this woman with such outrageous penalty. I mean I do support that artist should get paid decent amount of money for their songs that you like but not various Zionist companies who have created copyright laws so they can sell you something which will never be yours starting with this stupid windows OS or any other, movies, music etc.

This is all crap and they know it. Now they are targeting 12 year old kidz to educate them about copyrighted material. Yeah right you will, they don't listen to their parents and they will listen to your bubbling about how its not nice to steal from uncle Sam. Those same 12 year old gonna take your Matrix apart and you can't do anything about it because at age 12 they have more wits about hacking and other stuff:) than you have with 40. I hope that one day hackers will take down this hypocritical Zionist Matrix.

"Let there be Light!"

"The issue is not CD sales, and not royalties, but control of content, and of overall music supply. The RIAA wants to be the only source of music. It wants a total monopoly -- not only on sales, but on creative content. The Internet upsets their horrendous monopoly. It lets you hear what YOU want to hear."

Exactly, but I don't really think they can stop it. This move by the RIAA is more of a last ditch effort. The smell of desperation is in the air. The copyright laws are horribly restrictive and outdated.

Music has really stunk in the last few years and these people deserve it. That's why most people have no conscience about it. These establishment, millionaire musicians and record executives have been living high on the hog and now it's all coming back to them. I think most people who download this stuff would never buy it anyway, so only the musician can win if people are willing to go to a show when they come to town.

Too much medicore music has been pushed down the throats of the public. And now the public is responding in kind. Rather than change the system, they go after the little guy in hopes of scaring most people. It probably works in some way, but does not turn into record sales and is horribly bad PR.

BTW, good luck collecting the judgment. This woman can move from job to job and they'll never collect a cent. Not much of a life I know, but still a way to get around it.

Looks like in the future, musicians will have to get a day job. Thank God, maybe they will get back in touch with real people and learn how to sing about real life. Instead of their boring, cloistered self indulgence.

Yes, collection of the judgment is not important to the RIAA and IFPI. What’s important is the symbolic victory in court. The monopolies hope it will scare others.

In connection with this article, I am angry with my fellow Americans. The average person just doesn’t “get it.”

QRS “gets it.” She agrees. I hope other people at WUFYS “get it” too.

Let met explain by using an analogy…

Suppose you lived in a village that had only one water supply – a well. And suppose you own the well. Would it be right for you to have a total monopoly on water, and charge high prices for it?

If you say yes, then you are with the RIAA, the IFPI, and all monopolies.

If you say no, then how can you think this woman did something wrong by downloading music? On other web sites, many people have commented on this article. They say the $220,000 judgment is excessive, but the woman was wrong.

Huh?

Let’s go back to our analogy with the well in our village. Suppose I have a monopoly on water, and you take some water without my permission. Are you wrong? Are you a thief? No! I AM THE THIEF through my monopoly. I charge whatever price I choose. I steal your money.

All holders of monopolies use the same lies. They always twist reality into its exact opposite. “You took water from my well without asking me. You threatened the entire distribution system! The little old widow in cottage #34 depends on that system! Therefore you stole water from me, and from her also! You threatened EVERYONE!"

Lies! LIES! LIES!

You do not threaten her. I threaten her when I use my monopoly to charge higher and higher prices for water. I am the thief, not you.

Likewise, the Internet does not threaten small artists. On the contrary, the Internet is the only thing that keeps small artists alive. Organizations like the RIAA crush small artists. They determine who shall get record deals and so on. (Most RIAA people are Jews, by the way.)

And yet the jury found against this women, and average people say woman was wrong!

The RIAA and IFPI want a monopoly on music. That’s why they attack people who share files on the Internet. This is not about CD sales or royalties. It’s about protecting a MONOPOLY. They want to determine what you hear. They want sole power to choose which artists have success. If you don’t like the trash they sell, too bad. You will listen to what THEY choose.

By saying the woman was wrong, peasants say the monopoly holders have morality on their side. Might makes right.

QRS and I oppose ALL monopolies. At one time in the past, Americans passed anti-trust laws, because they agreed that monopolies were bad things. Today in the USA, monopolies have money and power on their side, plus morality too! That’s insane. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela wants to outlaw all monopolies in Venezuela.

I am constantly amazed at how peasants believe the lies of their exploiters. In the state where I live, auto insurance companies bribed state legislators to pass laws that mandated auto insurance. One cannot drive unless one has auto insurance. The insurance companies bought a monopoly. Their justification is that “driving is a privilege, not a right.” The public bought this lie, even though the public pays taxes for roads, for license plates, and for all the other things that make driving possible.

Again and again, the public defends monopolies that screw the public. The peasants defend their slave masters.

Once in a while the slaves rebel. When that happens, monopoly holders are shocked. They say, “What’s wrong with my slaves? Who will bring them water in the village if I do not have a monopoly? Rebellion will bring chaos and anarchy! My slaves need me!”

This is what the RIAA and IFPI do. “Without our monopoly, how will you get any music? What’s wrong with you? You need us!”

This is exactly what central bankers say about their monopoly. “You need us!”

NEVER FEEL GUILTY ABOUT DOING ANYTHING THAT SUBVERTS ANY MONOPOLY’S POWER.

It is THEY who are the thieves. Not you!

Excellent post and I generally agree, but I have some comments. I think it will help me understand your position better. I don’t mean to provoke anything, but would like to learn more about your ideas on this issue. You seem to have a more “socialistic” perspective in this regard, for lack of better term.

Music is not like water, because individuals create it and it is not a necessity. People should be rewarded for their labor. This encourages people to create, or so the theory goes. However, there is a tension in this area. At what point does this idea, that people should be rewarded for their labor, get excessive?

I know you are referring more to the distribution system than the creators of the music themselves. But they both seem to be in collusion.

As far as the jury is concerned, they follow the law. This jury handed down their verdict according to the jury instructions. So to blame them might be a little unfair. Of course, most people don’t know that they are not required to follow the law when making a decision as part of a jury. I wonder if the court even tells them that. Still, the verdict can be overturned by the judge if they feel the jury has excessively erred. Most people do what they're told like blind sheep.

Lastly, people have been conditioned so much on selfishness, that they support the selfish to their own detriment. With some vain hope that one day they will sit in the monopolist position.

Downloading hurts almost no one as far as I'm concerned. Have they ever proved this to be so? Are there less rich musicians than there were before? Is music getting better from this anachronistic system?

I agree that destroying monopolies can only be a good thing. Not so much for the price issue, as much as the danger posed by concentrated control.

Thanks again for the great post. Looking forward to your comments.

Thanks for your comments.

” You seem to have a more “socialistic” perspective in this regard, for lack of better term.”

Well, the term “socialist” has become meaningless. When people don’t want to debate something, they simply say, “You’re a socialist," which is like saying, “you’re anti-Semitic,” or, “you’re a racist.”

I am not a “socialist,” a “Marxist,” a “capitalist,” or anything. None of us are -- nor are we “liberal” or “conservative.” These are generalizations. They are weapons to stifle debate, or to distract people from the real issues. They are meaningless in the real world.

”Music is not like water, because individuals create it and it is not a necessity. People should be rewarded for their labor. This encourages people to create, or so the theory goes. However, there is a tension in this area. At what point does this idea, that people should be rewarded for their labor, get excessive?”

There are many ways to reward people for creative labor. Royalties are one way. Purchases of CDs or concert tickets are another way. There are tax breaks, and a thousand other ways, but the RIAA monopoly wants only the cash way, since this allows them to control everything. This is another reason why the RIAA wants a monopoly. They want to control how creative people are rewarded for their labor, since control brings bigger profits to the monopolies (i.e., to record labels, producers, agents, RIAA, etc.)

”I know you are referring more to the distribution system than the creators of the music themselves. But they both seem to be in collusion.”

The collusion only occurs between the monopoly holders and the handful of people they select for stardom. Smaller artists struggle against this collusion. A lucky few get to participate in the symbiosis. The rest are marginalized.

”As far as the jury is concerned, they follow the law. This jury handed down their verdict according to the jury instructions. So to blame them might be a little unfair. Of course, most people don’t know that they are not required to follow the law when making a decision as part of a jury. I wonder if the court even tells them that. Still, the judge can overturn the verdict if he or she feels the jury has excessively erred. Most people do what they're told like blind sheep.”

I still blame the jury. They didn’t think for themselves. They gave the verdict they were instructed to give. Either that, or they were predisposed to find against the woman. Nine tenths of every case is won or lost in the initial process of jury selection. The defense and prosecution haggle over the jury. Successful lawyers are those who master this game. What happens in the courtroom during the trial (or hearing) is of secondary importance. The woman didn’t have enough money to hire a decent attorney. She got a slug who let the prosecution choose most of the jury. Hence the woman lost the case before it ever went to trial. Like most people, she assumed the jury would be impartial.

”Lastly, people have been conditioned so much on selfishness, that they support the selfish to their own detriment. With some vain hope that one day they will sit in the monopolist position.”

Yes, the American public is downwardly mobile. When average Americans support war, they fantasize that they are part of the oppressors, not the oppressed. They imagine they are “on top.” This especially occurs in people that do not read, and have no education. “Christian” evangelicals, and warmongers in the South imagine they are not stupid peasants. They fancy they are on “God’s side.” This is one reason (among many) why evangelicals support zionists. They’re too cowardly to stand on their own, and they know that Jews own the USA. They want to be on the domineering side. They figure it’s better to be at the devil’s right hand than to be in the devil’s path. Of course they don’t think this consciously, but they follow the pattern nonetheless.

”Downloading hurts almost no one as far as I'm concerned. Have they ever proved this to be so? Are there less rich musicians than there were before? Is music getting better from this anachronistic system?”

The prosecution did not have to prove any damages, since they already convinced most people that they are “right.” Hence, facts and figures are irrelevant. Likewise, zionists need not prove anything about the holocaust,” since they are “right.” In most human beings, logic and law books are merely servants of subconscious impulses -- yet people pretend this is not so. They lie to themselves. In so doing, they become vulnerable when others lie to them. Put another way, we are only vulnerable to lies when we first lie to ourselves.

”I agree that destroying monopolies can only be a good thing. Not so much for the price issue, as much as the danger posed by concentrated control.”

Yes, this danger becomes readily apparent when we go to war, which, after all, is a product of banking monopolies.

Thanks for your comments.

many thanks, stern gang, for posting this important development, and AZ and duped for expanding on and questioning the issues involved.

monopolies - especially those that involve INFORMATION (of which music, movies and other forms of entertainment are subcategories) - are the most dangerous development of modern times.

I agree that labor must be rewarded, but monopoly and royalties are THE WORST way to go about it.

Rather than increasing creativity through an atmosphere that encourages the free exchange of ideas and information, the copyright system suffocates creativity by going so far as criminalizing the "unauthorized" exchange of information.

Let's face it - copyright is nothing more than a government sanctioned extortion racket - the most tragic and ironic aspect of which is the embrace of its draconian principles as the cornerstone of a properly functioning 'free' market.

The case against this poor woman is purely symbolic. Their $220,000 verdict is but a drop in the bucket compared to the torrential storm of profits they reap from having virtually complete control over the music and entertainment industries around the world.

Like AZ pointed out, not only do they benefit through all the monetary profits from music sales, they also get to DECIDE what kinds of thoughts and ideas permeate, hence SHAPE our minds and our cultures.

Through their monopoly of music and entertainment, these media giants (and the banksters behind them) rule the world.

---------------------------------------
"Money" has no value - people do.

You seem to have a more “socialistic” perspective in this regard, for lack of better term.

Creativity in all its dimensions including: art, music and varied forms of intellectual property are viewed in our societies from an economic perspective. The value of innovation is not linked in some intrinsic manner to the quality or socially beneficiary value of the production (work if you will) rather, it is judged by its profitability. In turn profitability is endowed to a system of selectivity within a myopic definition of what is a valuable innovation. In essence, as said elsewhere on this thread, a few wealthy individuals through their agents control what a successful invention is.

Let me premise this point by noting that file sharing is in effect a democratic tool for the music and movie industry. That is, availability of artists' creations on the Internet has to a certain degree wrest some of the god-like powers the industry elite has availed to themselves.

Musicians and film makers receive enormous exposure through P2P whereas, their material would have remained unknown to potential consumers and those that appreciate their art. Artists that would not have otherwise been afforded the ears and eyes of the public [you see they control what we see, feel, love and hate by putting a veil over our eyes, plugs in our ears and gloves or handcuffs on our extremities]. This same phenomena of filtering choice and taste are practiced in the media, schools, libraries and our halls of government.

The objectification and commoditification of every aspect of human discourse has indeed, stymied creativity. What would otherwise be in the public domain, enabling further development and creativity are legally, locked away for a century and sometimes in perpetuity by legislation - of course encouraged by a system of government that for all intent and purposes are elected by the highest bidders. These intellectual property and copyright laws work themselves to the detriment of tools and ideas at the disposal of humanity.

Music is not like water, because individuals create it and it is not a necessity. People should be rewarded for their labor. This encourages people to create, or so the theory goes. However, there is a tension in this area. At what point does this idea, that people should be rewarded for their labor, get excessive?

An important question that ultimately leads one to ask who are really rewarded and in what capacity [work if you will] do they benefit from the dynamic of mass-production controlled by a few individuals - who in fact, own the property of the creator. Artists for the most part are forced to sign away the rights to their creation precisely, because the industry is so restrictive and so omnipotent. Rarely, some brave artisans are able to break the choke-hold to produce and distribute their material. It is interesting to state that water, a naturally, existing compound often belongs to a select few or to a municipality while the majority is compelled to pay for its use (even if demand has to be manufactured as in bottled water).

Moreover, it is not labor that is being rewarded instead it is the co-opting of labor. Labor is controlled, usurped and directed for the profit of an ever shrinking number of individuals. As noted earlier, some of the most successful artists in the industries receive a few cents on the dollar and that is after costs and outlays - including but not limited to promotions - are met, which can sometimes range in the millions.

So yes, work should be rewarded as long as the work remains the property of those that produced it. It seems that law will be enacted to maintain the current system and destroy the people power inherent in the Internet. It is only a matter of time - again our law makers answer to those who pay their way.

I know you are referring more to the distribution system than the creators of the music themselves. But they both seem to be in collusion.

Some may well be in league with the industry. However, many are constrained to a system of behavior within the industry and have no input in how the industry goes after Internet users. Some will of course find the system benevolent precisely, because they are already successful and will toe the line in order to maintain those positions even if the entire matrix is corrupted.

As far as the jury is concerned, they follow the law.

The jury is immaterial to an understanding of the issue. Almost every person that fought the industries has lost the case. Most people usually, make them go away by settling out of court. The courts are used to put fear in the hearts of people and control society toward the aims of large corporations. This was a brave woman whose common sense told her this persecution was ridiculous and she followed those insightful sensitivities (rightly so).

Is music getting better from this anachronistic system?

Absolutely not innovation has emanated from sectors without the mainstream industry cycle - which the Internet avails to potential millions.

I agree that destroying monopolies can only be a good thing. Not so much for the price issue, as much as the danger posed by concentrated control.

I also agree for both reasons but also in light of the free flow of information that would ensue. Aligned to an opening of exchange [creativity] price would necessarily follow in a downtrend because all the artificial aspects included in price would be removed. Thanks for the query Duped.

________________
"As often as Herman had witnessed the slaughter of animals and fish, he always had the same thought: in their behavior toward creatures, most of mankind are Nazis"
--Isaac Bashevis