Wednesday, October 10, 2007

msb-0209 Its the law. Don't like it? Change it!

msb-0209 Its the law. Don't like it? Change it!


Feedback comes first, so...

I am still unemployed and looking for anything that will pay the rent...

My mother's still hanging in there.

My sister and I are still a bit bummed out. I'm making plans for one last visit.

---- "Big Lie" by: "Rai"

Feed Forward comes next, so...

This is "your" segment.

Say "your" piece on this segment.

Share with other MSers whatever "you" want to share.

Drop me an email: charles at

And I would apreciate if someone could write a review of this podcast on iTunes [ ] You can just select the link and, eventually, scroll down the iTunes page to "Customer Reviews"

---- "All Lies" by: "(De La Vega) Ivy League"

Feed Me comes third, so...

Do you have a therapy, product, good or service that is of interest to MSers?

Consider advertising on this podcast.

Reminders on this segment only cost $0.03 per reminder per download of an episode. (A $30CPM targeted at MSers.)

It can/should lead to a full ad, in text, audio or video, which costs $3.00 per download.

That sounds expensive until you do the math and realize that if nobody downloads it it costs you nothing, unlike print, where you often can't even get an ad in to the specialized journals, or radio or TV where you'd just be wasting your money with the 0.0833% MSers rate of return. (That's about six times "below" the level of "statistical noise".)

But MSBPodcast is 100% in your market, and you only pay per download of your material.

No play, no pay.

Reach the MSers who would buy your therapy, product, good or service, with-out having to waste your advertising money on anyone who is "not" interested...

Send me an email at: charles (at)

---- "Lie to me" by: "Redrooster-club"


One problem with what the RIAA is doing (and the MPAA's inevitably going to follow suit unless they change their business model in time,) is that the problems wont go away, unless and until they revise the expectations on both sides.

---- "Whole Lies & Half-truths" by: "Robin Tymm"


One of the many problems with the RIAA is that nothing is going to change by their own actions.

The lawsuits and harassment will only continue and every legal judgment that they win will only reinforce the popular opposition to the asymmetric application of the rule of law.

$220,000 for 14 songs when you usually hear them for free on the radio is a capricious application of the law.

Of course, what is getting people up in arms, me included, is that the RIAA's lawyers are attacking the consumers instead of the enablers, the suppliers of peer-to-peer, which are letting consumers make available the content for free, just like radio stations.

The perception is that the music is free since it is put forth for free on the radio stations. Of course its paid for by the advertisers, (okay people are just ignoring the ads anyway, [or, in my case, they would be if I could "get" any advertisers {Hope springs eternal, doesn't it. (That's why I am podcasting and into the new media. :-)}])

There are solutions to the asymmetry of the legal situation, the first is to change the law. Just "tweak" it.

Copyright violation "was" done for profit, usually by some people with access to the means of production.

Its now done by by individuals for free and the punishments should reflect that reality.

However, the DMCA and copyright law were written before the new digital reality. (In the case of copyright law, a long time before.)

The judgments are grossly disproportionate and that is what strikes everyone as grossly unfair. The reason for that (and for the RIAA's settling for pennies on the dollar before it ever gets to court) is that the law "is" grossly unfair.

By attempting to apply the same punitive rules that would apply to a corporation making a profit from the violation to an individual who's put the stuff out there for free, just like it is when they hear it on the radio, the RIAA are definitely "not" making any friends.

Yes, the RIAA is right to use existing copyright law to go after counterfeiters and the current penalties should stay if they make a profit from it.

No, the RIAA is wrong to use existing copyright to go after file sharers because the penalties just can't apply when the person is "not" making a cent from the act of sharing. (The old adage of "Follow the Money" just doesn't work with the various "file sharers" now does it. They're doing it for "free.")

Rather than just throw in the towel on piracy, (which is impossible, even if we wanted to because its against human nature, on both sides of the equation,) we need to pass a law that can differentiate between one kind of violation "for profit" and the other kind of violation "pour rien".

The DMCA is a bad idea and has only been been used in trying to get judgments to "prevent" communication, much "against" its stated aim.

The copyright law as it stands makes it impossible to altruistically "share" information. "Street Buzz" would be impossible because, well, its against the laws.

Both desperately need to be redrafted.

---- "Telling Lies" by: "stellar art wars"


What the RIAAs doing (and the MPAA's inevitably going to follow suit unless they change their business model in time,) wont go address the problems unless and until they revise the expectations on both sides.

They will be reviled and loathed regardless of what they do because the average lawyer doesn't care about winning any popularity contests.

Now do they care to explain themselves and that's the tragedy (along with the lives they are ruining, while making life long enemies.)

But if the law they are charged with enforcing, which should be the police's job, not the lawyers job, was fair, it would make everybody's life much easier.

I don't give a flying fu.. uh, fart. I am not interested in any music from any of the RIAA's clients' anyway. (They couldn't pay me to listen to "Free Bird" or listen to "Britney" or ... Hey, I don't need to depress myself. )

---- "Women, Whiskey, Weed, & Lies" by: "Straightfork"


No comments: