Important cases in the Supreme Court
The highest court in the Land heard arguments for two important cases today, both having to do with tech, both having to do with big business trying to maintain control. Oh, and both are stupid.
The first, more important of the two, is the record and film industries' attempts to sue the companies that run Peer to Peer file sharing programs like Grokster or Limewire. The RIAA and MPAA are well aware that they are losing millions to file sharing instead of paying, that so many people do it that it has become common place, almost passe. The people are laughing at their attempts to control us! So the RIAA want to sue any company that creates a tool that could be used to help do these things. The argument is that P2P services are used for 90% illegal activity, their intended purpose is illegal, therefore they should go away. And it's a stupid argument. What do you buy a gun for? A tool is a tool, it's the user that is accountable. And you can't sue millions of people. Especially not in a democracy. As the population grows up, the voters will gradually turn against the RIAA.
I can kinda see the reasoning here. Sure, J Lo ain't gonna need the extra money, but the "little people" like song writers and one-hit wonders are certainly hurting. They're like trust fund babies banking of their one or two songs, and I know they are missing their income right now. But it's income based on a stupid system, one that is inherently flawed, and one that computers have freed us from. Computers are here to stay, so there will ALWAYS be ways around this. People move their music to a format that gives them freedom, freedom to listen to what they want without control. If the RIAA had it's way, there'd be a chip in your brain that would charge you every time you even heard a song. Fuck 'em. The reason why Apple was treated with such mistrust and distain at first is that it's a channel outside of the RIAA's control. They're called "record companies" for a reason, they control distribution. They don't control iTunes Music Store, not right now. The record companies don't make CD players, they package music, and with the iTMS artists can sidestep the record companies all together. No more stupid over-produced pop music from young "musicans" who can barely carry a tune, the puppet masters won't exist to support them. At least not in the form they exist now, anyway...
The other hearing is beyond retarded, I'm surprised it made it to the Supreme Court, in fact, Wired.com mentioned that the justices were pretty bored with the arguments. Cables companies, who offer phone and internet service, don't want to play buy the same rules are phone companies, who have to rent out their lines at government set rates. The FCC, in typical Bushian politics, has sided with the big dogs, stating that the Cable Companies don't technical offer the same services. Wired called it a grand "shell game" and I agree. If you offer phone service, you need to play by the same rules.
We'll get the court's rulings on both cases around June.
The first, more important of the two, is the record and film industries' attempts to sue the companies that run Peer to Peer file sharing programs like Grokster or Limewire. The RIAA and MPAA are well aware that they are losing millions to file sharing instead of paying, that so many people do it that it has become common place, almost passe. The people are laughing at their attempts to control us! So the RIAA want to sue any company that creates a tool that could be used to help do these things. The argument is that P2P services are used for 90% illegal activity, their intended purpose is illegal, therefore they should go away. And it's a stupid argument. What do you buy a gun for? A tool is a tool, it's the user that is accountable. And you can't sue millions of people. Especially not in a democracy. As the population grows up, the voters will gradually turn against the RIAA.
I can kinda see the reasoning here. Sure, J Lo ain't gonna need the extra money, but the "little people" like song writers and one-hit wonders are certainly hurting. They're like trust fund babies banking of their one or two songs, and I know they are missing their income right now. But it's income based on a stupid system, one that is inherently flawed, and one that computers have freed us from. Computers are here to stay, so there will ALWAYS be ways around this. People move their music to a format that gives them freedom, freedom to listen to what they want without control. If the RIAA had it's way, there'd be a chip in your brain that would charge you every time you even heard a song. Fuck 'em. The reason why Apple was treated with such mistrust and distain at first is that it's a channel outside of the RIAA's control. They're called "record companies" for a reason, they control distribution. They don't control iTunes Music Store, not right now. The record companies don't make CD players, they package music, and with the iTMS artists can sidestep the record companies all together. No more stupid over-produced pop music from young "musicans" who can barely carry a tune, the puppet masters won't exist to support them. At least not in the form they exist now, anyway...
The other hearing is beyond retarded, I'm surprised it made it to the Supreme Court, in fact, Wired.com mentioned that the justices were pretty bored with the arguments. Cables companies, who offer phone and internet service, don't want to play buy the same rules are phone companies, who have to rent out their lines at government set rates. The FCC, in typical Bushian politics, has sided with the big dogs, stating that the Cable Companies don't technical offer the same services. Wired called it a grand "shell game" and I agree. If you offer phone service, you need to play by the same rules.
We'll get the court's rulings on both cases around June.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home