― js (honestengine), Thursday, 16 February 2006 23:59 (twenty years ago)
We maintain that Sony, despite RIAA membership, has knowingly and traitorously contributed to this large-scale network of copyright infringement through their production of "speakers" and "headphones," and ask that an immediate injunction be placed upon any further manufacture of same.
― RIAA Spokesperson, Friday, 17 February 2006 00:19 (twenty years ago)
― Jeff Bess (jeffbess), Friday, 17 February 2006 01:18 (twenty years ago)
― Forksclovetofu (Forksclovetofu), Friday, 17 February 2006 01:24 (twenty years ago)
― whatever (boglogger), Friday, 17 February 2006 09:31 (twenty years ago)
― StanM (StanM), Friday, 17 February 2006 09:48 (twenty years ago)
― StanM (StanM), Friday, 17 February 2006 09:52 (twenty years ago)
Morons.
― Sororah T Massacre (blueski), Friday, 17 February 2006 10:34 (twenty years ago)
Of course, they do suffer from downloading itself, but that's not neariy as effective as, saying, hundreds of people lining up outside record stores on the day the new Coldplay album finally comes out, and then demonstratively buying only, say, a blank jewel box. Let EMI's board explain THAT to their shareholders.
― Mitya (mitya), Friday, 17 February 2006 14:27 (twenty years ago)
Is this really true? I was under the impression that sort of thing only happens every so often.
StanM otm - a lot of the rhetoric around this issue seems to think the labels should just throw in the towel and stop bothering to spend money putting artists in studios, etc, since their product isn't a product at all but "information" - it's natural for people who're spending money making stuff to wanna recoup on their investment, but it's ridiculous to alienate the customer base
― Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Friday, 17 February 2006 14:42 (twenty years ago)
― Dan Gr (certain), Friday, 17 February 2006 16:36 (twenty years ago)
― carson dial (carson dial), Friday, 17 February 2006 16:38 (twenty years ago)
No, you're right. Mostly just when there's a G8, IMF/WB, or Davos-type meeting.
My point, to the extent that I had one, is that people are willing to resort to violence (which probably creates a little bad PR for their actual targets while actually affecting many more people lower on the capitalist food chain) against the rather inchoate concept of "globalization" but when we have a handful of conglomerates that overcharge you for a non-essential product, then come up with restrictive "rules" for how you can use it, and threaten to sue if you don't comply, well... nothing.
And I guess -- hopefully wrongly -- that I associate the majority of the people on ILX with leftish political sentiment, if not necessarily of the Golden Arches-demolishing kind.
― Mitya (mitya), Friday, 17 February 2006 17:18 (twenty years ago)
― Soultr0n, Friday, 17 February 2006 17:30 (twenty years ago)
― Mitya (mitya), Friday, 17 February 2006 17:37 (twenty years ago)