Justice for Performers

[ScarletMacaw]

There's a bill in Congress and some other important info highlighted in this New York Times essay. It's about how early performers such as Chuck Berry are being ripped off by a law that's being exploited by music streaming services,  and the amount of money stolen by Google each year through profits from illegally copied songs and albums.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/opinion/do-you-love-music-silicon-valley-doesnt.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0

Email or call your Congressperson to get them to support Nadler's bill.

[Strider]

No justice. No play.

[SteveAJones]

I don't know if I can support this bill, as it seems to push for more Big Government control of the internet and radio. Let's just leave this issue for the lawyers as they're always looking for ways to justify their retainer fees anyway.

[ScarletMacaw]

6 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

I don't know if I can support this bill, as it seems to push for more Big Government control of the internet and radio. Let's just leave this issue for the lawyers as they're always looking for ways to justify their retainer fees anyway.

You'd rather be controlled by Big Corporations? At least we can vote the government out of office if we don't like it...(if people bother to vote after researching their politicians)

[Strider]

It may be too late to put the toothpaste back in the tube. There have now been essentially two generations of kids who have grown up expecting their music for free. That sense of entitlement may prove difficult to regulate.

[Kiwi_Zep_Fan87]

I'm a millennial, who doesn't believe in illegal downloads. 

[Kiwi_Zep_Fan87]

This is quite an old news story, but it does belong in this thread, I think!

Jury orders student to pay $675,000 for illegally downloading music

• By DENISE LAVOIE
•  ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
•  

A federal jury on Friday (31st July, 2009) ordered a Boston University graduate student who admitted illegally downloading and sharing music online to pay $675,000 to four record labels.

Joel Tenenbaum, of Providence, admitted in court that he downloaded and distributed 30 songs. The only issue for the jury to decide was how much in damages to award the record labels.

Under federal law, the recording companies were entitled to $750 to $30,000 per infringement. But the law allows as much as $150,000 per track if the jury finds the infringements were willful. The maximum jurors could have awarded in Tenenbaum's case was $4.5 million.

Jurors ordered Tenenbaum to pay $22,500 for each incident of copyright infringement, effectively finding that his actions were willful. The attorney for the 25-year-old student had asked the jury earlier Friday to "send a message" to the music industry by awarding only minimal damages.

Tenenbaum said he was thankful that the case wasn't in the millions and contrasted the significance of his fine with the maximum.

"That to me sends a message of 'We considered your side with some legitimacy,'" he said. "$4.5 million would have been, 'We don't buy it at all.'"

He added he will file for bankruptcy if the verdict stands.

Tenenbaum's lawyer, Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson, said the jury's verdict was not fair. He said he plans to appeal the decision because he was not allowed to argue a case based on fair use.

The case is only the nation's second music downloading case against an individual to go to trial.

Last month, a federal jury in Minneapolis ruled that Jammie Thomas-Rasset, 32, must pay $1.92 million, or $80,000 on each of 24 songs, after concluding she willfully violated the copyrights on those tunes.

The jury began deliberating the case Friday afternoon.

After Tenenbaum admitted Thursday he is liable for damages for 30 songs at issue in the case, U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner ruled that the jury must consider only whether his copyright infringement was willful and how much in damages to award four recording labels that sued him over the illegal file-sharing.

In his closing statement Friday, Nesson repeatedly referred to Tenenbaum as a "kid" and asked the jury to award only a small amount to the recording companies. At one point, Nesson suggested the damages should be as little as 99 cents per song, roughly the same amount Tenenbaum would have to pay if he legally purchased the music online.

But Tim Reynolds, a lawyer for the recording labels, recounted Tenenbaum's history of file-sharing from 1999 to 2007, describing him as "a hardcore, habitual, long-term infringer who knew what he was doing was wrong." Tenenbaum admitted on the witness stand that he had downloaded and shared more than 800 songs.

Tenenbaum said he downloaded and shared hundreds of songs by Nirvana, Green Day, The Smashing Pumpkins and other artists. The recording industry focused on only 30 songs in the case.

The music industry has typically offered to settle such cases for about $5,000, though it has said that it stopped filing such lawsuits last August and is instead working with Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders. Cases already filed, however, are proceeding to trial.

Tenenbaum testified that he had lied in pretrial depositions when he said his two sisters, friends and others may have been responsible for downloading the songs to his computer.

Under questioning from his own lawyer, Tenenbaum said he now takes responsibility for the illegal swapping.

"I used the computer. I uploaded, I downloaded music ... I did it," Tenenbaum said. 

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8226751&page=1

[nemophilist]

On 5/21/2016 at 0:01 PM, ScarletMacaw said:

You'd rather be controlled by Big Corporations? At least we can vote the government out of office if we don't like it...(if people bother to vote after researching their politicians)

You do realize that big corporations are the ones that push for big government right? They are one of the biggest reasons why we have a big government in the US. If we insisted on and ensured that we would have a limited constitutional government they would not be interested in harnessing the governments powers, because in that system, the government would have virtually zero power (I mean if we stayed within the constitutional system of government). That system of government comes from the thought process of "government is at best a necessary evil". So with that thought process the best and most natural form of government would be as close to anarchy as possible, and that's essentially how the US Constitution was framed.  Corporations love when government powers grow outside the shackles of the constitutions limited powers. Usually anytime the government grows in power and size, you can bet and find the evidence that there are big powerful corporations and or big banks lobbying their already purchased politicians to expand government powers, and then benefiting from that increase in power, even when it comes to government having more power over the economy, they love it because it squashes their smaller, less wealthy competition.

See even if this bill ( I honestly didn't check out the article yet) is positive and beneficial to performers, there is a chance that the politicians are slipping in little expansions in power over the internet which will incrementally lead to full control of the internet like the Chinese government has, where you have to fear posting any thing that can be construed as anti establishment and everything will be tracked and strictly monitored even more, and anything offensive or anti-establishment will be removed(such as youtube videos, or alternative news websites), and the poster will be punished in one way or another. Some of this is already occurring across Europe, and usually what happens in one western country eventually occurs in another because generally all of those governments are corrupted and run by the same corporate, banking, financial, and royal interests. Corrupt politicians always like to slip little secretive expansions of federal power in nearly all legislation these days in the US. Those expansions in power are only revealed either in alternative media and or after the bill is already passed.

[Strider]

41 minutes ago, nemophilist said:

You do realize that big corporations are the ones that push for big government right? They are one of the biggest reasons why we have a big government in the US. If we insisted on and ensured that we would have a limited constitutional government they would not be interested in harnessing the governments powers, because in that system, the government would have virtually zero power (I mean if we stayed within the constitutional system of government). That system of government comes from the thought process of "government is at best a necessary evil". So with that thought process the best and most natural form of government would be as close to anarchy as possible, and that's essentially how the US Constitution was framed.  Corporations love when government powers grow outside the shackles of the constitutions limited powers. Usually anytime the government grows in power and size, you can bet and find the evidence that there are big powerful corporations and or big banks lobbying their already purchased politicians to expand government powers, and then benefiting from that increase in power, even when it comes to government having more power over the economy, they love it because it squashes their smaller, less wealthy competition.

See even if this bill ( I honestly didn't check out the article yet) is positive and beneficial to performers, there is a chance that the politicians are slipping in little expansions in power over the internet which will incrementally lead to full control of the internet like the Chinese government has, where you have to fear posting any thing that can be construed as anti establishment and everything will be tracked and strictly monitored even more, and anything offensive or anti-establishment will be removed(such as youtube videos, or alternative news websites), and the poster will be punished in one way or another. Some of this is already occurring across Europe, and usually what happens in one western country eventually occurs in another because generally all of those governments are corrupted and run by the same corporate, banking, financial, and royal interests. Corrupt politicians always like to slip little secretive expansions of federal power in nearly all legislation these days in the US. Those expansions in power are only revealed either in alternative media and or after the bill is already passed.

Excellent points nemophilist.

[ScarletMacaw]

5 hours ago, nemophilist said:

You do realize that big corporations are the ones that push for big government right? They are one of the biggest reasons why we have a big government in the US. If we insisted on and ensured that we would have a limited constitutional government they would not be interested in harnessing the governments powers, because in that system, the government would have virtually zero power (I mean if we stayed within the constitutional system of government). That system of government comes from the thought process of "government is at best a necessary evil". So with that thought process the best and most natural form of government would be as close to anarchy as possible, and that's essentially how the US Constitution was framed.  Corporations love when government powers grow outside the shackles of the constitutions limited powers. Usually anytime the government grows in power and size, you can bet and find the evidence that there are big powerful corporations and or big banks lobbying their already purchased politicians to expand government powers, and then benefiting from that increase in power, even when it comes to government having more power over the economy, they love it because it squashes their smaller, less wealthy competition.

See even if this bill ( I honestly didn't check out the article yet) is positive and beneficial to performers, there is a chance that the politicians are slipping in little expansions in power over the internet which will incrementally lead to full control of the internet like the Chinese government has, where you have to fear posting any thing that can be construed as anti establishment and everything will be tracked and strictly monitored even more, and anything offensive or anti-establishment will be removed(such as youtube videos, or alternative news websites), and the poster will be punished in one way or another. Some of this is already occurring across Europe, and usually what happens in one western country eventually occurs in another because generally all of those governments are corrupted and run by the same corporate, banking, financial, and royal interests. Corrupt politicians always like to slip little secretive expansions of federal power in nearly all legislation these days in the US. Those expansions in power are only revealed either in alternative media and or after the bill is already passed.

And people call me paranoid.

European countries don't have the First Amendment. But even Europe isn't going to become like China. The Chinese don't have a democratic tradition. It's a lot harder to take something away from people than it is to simply give them more of what they're used to.

[SteveAJones]

On 5/21/2016 at 1:01 AM, ScarletMacaw said:

You'd rather be controlled by Big Corporations? At least we can vote the government out of office if we don't like it...(if people bother to vote after researching their politicians)

I prefer to empower the free market, not politicians. Voting is about as pointless as a Japanese wet t-shirt contest.

[apantherfrommd]

11 hours ago, nemophilist said:

You do realize that big corporations are the ones that push for big government right? They are one of the biggest reasons why we have a big government in the US. If we insisted on and ensured that we would have a limited constitutional government they would not be interested in harnessing the governments powers, because in that system, the government would have virtually zero power (I mean if we stayed within the constitutional system of government). That system of government comes from the thought process of "government is at best a necessary evil". So with that thought process the best and most natural form of government would be as close to anarchy as possible, and that's essentially how the US Constitution was framed.  Corporations love when government powers grow outside the shackles of the constitutions limited powers. Usually anytime the government grows in power and size, you can bet and find the evidence that there are big powerful corporations and or big banks lobbying their already purchased politicians to expand government powers, and then benefiting from that increase in power, even when it comes to government having more power over the economy, they love it because it squashes their smaller, less wealthy competition.

See even if this bill ( I honestly didn't check out the article yet) is positive and beneficial to performers, there is a chance that the politicians are slipping in little expansions in power over the internet which will incrementally lead to full control of the internet like the Chinese government has, where you have to fear posting any thing that can be construed as anti establishment and everything will be tracked and strictly monitored even more, and anything offensive or anti-establishment will be removed(such as youtube videos, or alternative news websites), and the poster will be punished in one way or another. Some of this is already occurring across Europe, and usually what happens in one western country eventually occurs in another because generally all of those governments are corrupted and run by the same corporate, banking, financial, and royal interests. Corrupt politicians always like to slip little secretive expansions of federal power in nearly all legislation these days in the US. Those expansions in power are only revealed either in alternative media and or after the bill is already passed.

Sorry nemophilist. You are on a liberal website. We cannot speak of such things here. Your point is noted and possibly soon to be deleted.

Anarchy is given a bad rap here. It goes against establishment.

Performers are given a small window of freedom, so long as it jives with the politically correct.  Speaking of freedoms withheld and you're bold. But don't be surprised if your post is deemed offensive here. as freedom of speech is what we hold dear.

The minions will mock you and say you're a racist., for bucking the establishment here, of all places.

 

On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 10:18 AM, ScarletMacaw said:

There's a bill in Congress and some other important info highlighted in this New York Times essay. It's about how early performers such as Chuck Berry are being ripped off by a law that's being exploited by music streaming services,  and the amount of money stolen by Google each year through profits from illegally copied songs and albums.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/opinion/do-you-love-music-silicon-valley-doesnt.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0

Email or call your Congressperson to get them to support Nadler's bill.

Careful, Miss Scarlet. You disagree with google.

[nemophilist]

9 hours ago, apantherfrommd said:

Sorry nemophilist. You are on a liberal website. We cannot speak of such things here. Your point is noted and possibly soon to be deleted.

Anarchy is given a bad rap here. It goes against establishment.

Performers are given a small window of freedom, so long as it jives with the politically correct.  Speaking of freedoms withheld and you're bold. But don't be surprised if your post is deemed offensive here. as freedom of speech is what we hold dear.

The minions will mock you and say you're a racist., for bucking the establishment here, of all places.

 

Careful, Miss Scarlet. You disagree with google.

 

16 hours ago, ScarletMacaw said:

And people call me paranoid.

European countries don't have the First Amendment. But even Europe isn't going to become like China. The Chinese don't have a democratic tradition. It's a lot harder to take something away from people than it is to simply give them more of what they're used to.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/09/nazi-salute-dog-man-faces-hate-crime-charge-scotland

http://www.businessinsider.com/in-britain-police-arrest-twitter-and-facebook-users-if-they-make-anti-muslim-statements-2013-5

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/germany-springs-to-action-over-hate-speech-against-migrants/2016/01/06/6031218e-b315-11e5-8abc-d09392edc612_story.html

http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297128/matthew-doyle-arrest-muslim-tweet-brussels

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/07/police-raid-social-media-posts/

http://investmentwatchblog.com/germany-orders-raids-in-homes-of-citizens-writing-anti-muslim-migrant-social-media-posts/

I mean whether you agree with those articles or not it's just ridiculously tyrannical to arrest or to get government to harass someone over "offensive speech". It's childish and irrational. It's right out of George Orwell's 1984 or even Animal Farm.

hate speech laws = thought control, control over language, no freedom of speech.

 

I'm sure I could find other recent examples as well. I know what you're saying though, not Chinese levels of tyranny but trust me if the establishment gets their way, some day it could happen. And you are totally right about your statement in the sentence you typed regarding china not having a democratic tradition.

I don't know about what is going on in the EU and in the European Countries but Politicians in the US are already throwing out the idea of needing government approval and ID to post political articles and opinions online, they WILL at some point in the near future attempt to legislate that idea. I don't think it will pass, but they'll keep pushing for it. That is essentially a form of control that China already has over the internet in their country.

[nemophilist]

10 hours ago, apantherfrommd said:

Sorry nemophilist. You are on a liberal website. We cannot speak of such things here. Your point is noted and possibly soon to be deleted.

Anarchy is given a bad rap here. It goes against establishment.

Performers are given a small window of freedom, so long as it jives with the politically correct.  Speaking of freedoms withheld and you're bold. But don't be surprised if your post is deemed offensive here. as freedom of speech is what we hold dear.

The minions will mock you and say you're a racist., for bucking the establishment here, of all places.

 

Careful, Miss Scarlet. You disagree with google.

Lol yes I am sO racist for believing that no matter what little group you're part of, or if you shOckingly identify as an individual, you shall have the freedom to speak your mind and offend whomever you please. Such a terrible tyrant I am, thinking that people should be allowed to speak however they feel and that other people should be conscious and mature enough to not have an over emotional reaction that leads to crucifixion or for their need of a safe space. Next time I post I'll make sure I check my white male privilege and will no longer speak freely because there was once some 3% of terrible light skinned people that I have no personal relation to that were horribly ignorant enough to think that someone with darker skin than they were less human, I must now pay by losing my freedom for all eternity lol!

And I'm not even an anarchist! I just believe in true limited Constitutional government, that doesn't intervene in to the lives of the people, either on an economic or a personal level.

I was just making the point that sometimes when you hear of the atrocities, crimes, the fact of government always getting corrupted by corporate and banking elites, the usurpation of rights and just blatant acts of treason and lies governments commit against their own people and crimes they commit against humanity as a whole, you are faced with the thought of "maybe we would be better off without government at all" but then the next thought that follows is that "well then it goes back to just the strongest, greediest person or group of people stealing food, property, and enslaving people for the group or strongest persons benefit and then possibly committing murder in the process of doing the latter against the weaker individuals. So I guess we do need the threat of punishment against those perverted acts and the protection of property and liberty". That is essentially where the creation of limited government comes from.