Slashdot Mirror


Universal Sends DMCA Takedown On 1980 Report

An anonymous reader writes "For many, many years, every time some new technology has come along, the music industry has insisted that it's going to "kill" the industry. The player piano was supposed to kill live music. So was the radio. And, of course, every time this happens the press is willing to take the industry's word at face value. In 1980, the news program 20/20 posted a report all about how "home taping is killing music," with various recording industry execs insisting the industry was on its last legs unless something was done. Someone posted that 20/20 episode to YouTube a few years back, where it sat in obscurity until people noticed it a couple weeks ago. And suddenly, Universal Music issued a takedown notice for the show. Universal Music does not own 20/20, and there were only brief clips of music in the show. It appears the only reason for Universal to issue the takedown is that it doesn't want you seeing how badly it overreacted in the past."

54 of 189 comments (clear)

  1. Or maybe by MrEricSir · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...there's no "cover up" here at all, and the big media companies send takedown notices to just about every video on YouTube.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Or maybe by ubergeek65536 · · Score: 3, Funny

      The script for the cease-and-desist letter is part of the submit button

    2. Re:Or maybe by enderjsv · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or maybe sending take down notices to ALL videos on youtube is just a way to cover up the ones they REALLY want to take down.

      We're through the looking glass, people.

    3. Re:Or maybe by marcello_dl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except rick astley's stuff.
      Seriously, media companies are very interested in web trend so it's likely they noticed the video when it got popular. Since they also sue people for unreasonable amount of money I think they are perfectly capable of using DMCA takedown to avoid eggs in the face.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    4. Re:Or maybe by enderjsv · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only it won't work. I just learned about the Streisand effect from the recent article about officer Bubble, and I already have a situation in which to apply it. That's convenient.

    5. Re:Or maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's no 'cover up' because there's no truth the the summary's statement that " In 1980, the news program 20/20 posted a report all about how "home taping is killing music," with various recording industry execs insisting the industry was on its last legs unless something was done."

      I watched the video and it does no such thing. It mentions home taping once and mentions that sales had 'levelled' but the substance of the programme is the new development of video and music, specifically laser discs, and the music industy's hopes that this would allow them to gain ever greater profits.

      This is a bogus /. story. I wish I could say it was the first. Utterly misleading and a waste of your time, dear reader.

      RTA?

      The video posted in the article is the 'first half' of the 20/20 piece. The second half was no longer available when the author went to view it a second time.

    6. Re:Or maybe by HermMunster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The video that was DMCA'd down was the 2nd half of a 20/20 news segment about the issues befalling the music industry back in the 1980s.

      There's enough time between the "failure of the music industry's disdain for the player piano and the radio" as to make points on both sides moot.

      But, a DMCA notice to take down something that occurred in the 80s which pinpoints the exact same reasoning we have today for the alleged destruction of the music industry is telling. This segment wasn't even owned by the music industry, it was owned by 20/20 the news magazine. The content within clearly falls within the fair use doctrine, which, should be considered the default rather than the exception--meaning we should make them prove that it isn't fair use before they can prevail with a DMCA or in court, rather than the way it is now where fair use has to prove itself.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    7. Re:Or maybe by md65536 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Only it won't work. I just learned about the Streisand effect from the recent article about officer Bubble, and I already have a situation in which to apply it. That's convenient.

      Yeah, I was thinking about that too, except I now think that the Streisand effect is not that effective.

      If you say "the recording industry doesn't want you to see this this video" or "Officer bubbles will arrest you for assaulting him with a viewing of this video", then there are a certain type of people who will seek out the video. These people are probably the type who like to form opinions for themselves, and are probably also the type who don't mindlessly follow the authority claimed by big business or abusive government organizations. Those willing to risk being sued for a million dollars for making Officer bubbles feel foolish for acting like a ridiculous crybaby bully, probably already believe that police sometimes abuse their authority. Those who want to see the recording industry expose their lies and deception probably already know that the record company people are shadyyyy.

      I believe that something like this (Officer bubbles or 20/20) is of interest to this type of person... slashdot people... knowledge and understanding seekers. Then occasionally it gains enough attention that it becomes a meme, and others... facebook people... those interested in what's popular... they will catch on. They will pay attention because others are.

      I believe it's the second group of people that groups like RIAA fear, because they can be swayed easily by a message, and stuff like Officer bubbles and 20/20 are "uncontrolled messages," that may have an undesirable effect on an organization's brand management.

      And I don't mean to say that individuals can be separated into one group or the other, but rather that as a collective, groups of people can act like flocks of sheep. I think it's the flocks that steer the recording industry or the police. The Streisand effect affects individuals, not flocks.

    8. Re:Or maybe by davester666 · · Score: 2, Funny

      They had to do this, as it was totally killing DVD sales of the report.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    9. Re:Or maybe by Herby+Sagues · · Score: 2, Informative

      What's more important, a short time after the interview, the music industry got what they wanted in order "to survive": they got a tax on all recordable media that woudl cover presumed piracy. So they could credibly say that what they say in the video was completely true, that they would have died if they didn't tax everyone that bought a tape (even if it was to record their own voice). Instead of taking down the video they should use it to say that, since that tax saved the industry before, a tax on Internet access and storage devices would save it again. But those dumbasses don't know how to steal even if they have been doing it for decades.

    10. Re:Or maybe by flyneye · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My interesting idea is to go ahead and share music, never paying a cent until the music industry is very actually teats up.
      Musicians will once again be able to make a living playing music. Give it away and charge for performance. It really is the only realistic way for music to even work. Give it away and charge for performance. Music will thrive with actual musicians rather than office flunkies controlling it.
      Yes, kill the industry completely f**king dead. We don't need them, never have, and would've ALWAYS been better off without them.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  2. ++good by retech · · Score: 3, Funny

    double plus good say I.

    1. Re:++good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wouldn't that be good+1? Like a counter...

      no, ++good increments the value of good, _before_ you miss the joke

  3. People send takedown notices almost randomly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I noticed a bunch of home-filmed performances of amateur pianists playing various Mozart stuff had been taken down, because some random publishing company claimed ownership, just to plaster them with ads -- and the company gets the ad revenue.

    Anybody with a brain would realize that the work is hundreds of years old, and the performance in question is owned by the poster (the guy sitting at the piano), but apparently forcing your ads onto other peoples youtube vids in this manner has become a trendy revenue stream for cocksuckers. Almost as trendy as the sucking of the cock in the first place.

    1. Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What do you bet they use a program to scour the net with the Shazam engine (or something like it), detect the music content, and automatically generate a form based takedown notice. All without ever needing a first person review.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly by HermMunster · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Those Mozart pieces of music are in the public domain. If someone performs a musical piece from that era that works then automatically becomes copyrighted--only that performance and not the actual work that it was based on.

      There are penalties for false DMCA claims but no one goes after the abusers. This should have been established up front and tremendous penalties should be levied against those making false claims. The impact of a false claim has a much larger impact than some individual violating copyrighted materials, IMHO.

      The purpose of the monopoly ownership of these types of works of art was to encourage creativity. They were granted monopoly over these works for a limited time knowing it would be put into the public domain afterwards.

      Back then the content creator's claim were that if they didn't have monopoly rights and all things went to the public domain there'd be no reason to create. So, the government, in an effort to ensure everything went to the public domain to help ensure culture survived, granted them this right, not the other way round.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    3. Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Funny

      This sounds quite interesting. Is there a way I can randomly claim ownership of YouTube videos, and derive revenues from their viewers? Or do you have to be someone special to get in on that?

    4. Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Informative

      That doesn't stop them from trying to rape you with licensing fees if they think there's any connection to the sheet music. If one industry pisses me off more then the music industry, it's the sheet music industry.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    5. Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly by Wordplay · · Score: 4, Informative

      The original compositions are in the public domain. Simplified adaptations for amateur piano are derivative works that probably are not.

    6. Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well it is high time to start aggressively campaigning for an amendment to the DMCA setting out substantive penalties for false claims with significant payments to the party who were defamed and who had their constitutional rights to free speech infringed.

      There has been a lot of complaints about abuses of the DMCA but as yet seemingly little action to force an amendment for false claims.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    7. Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly by Lehk228 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      easy penalty, loss of the right to utilize the DMCA takedown mechanism, and addition to a registry of banned entities. any person who uses the DMCA takedown when banned from doing so is subject to up to 366 days in prison. the persons considered responsible would be both the chief officer of the responsible corporation and the cheif officer of any majority stakeholders, recursively. so no shenanigans with forming shell corporations to file DMCA takedowns.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  4. Youtube link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The actual program in question:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Vz7Z42Fl9s

    1. Re:Youtube link by boarder8925 · · Score: 5, Informative

      As of 19:37 Eastern Time, part two is still down, at least in the U.S.

    2. Re:Youtube link by RichardDeVries · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's available in The Netherlands. I don't know if it has been down here. v=E9KRtuEttIQ

      --
      Error 001
      Security Scan and Virus Detection do not work with your operating system.
    3. Re:Youtube link by Jesus_666 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Both parts are down in Germany. "This video contains content form UMG. It is unavailable in your country."

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  5. Has anything really changed? by Stregano · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is always something that is putting the music industry on its "last leg". As technology advances, they just continue bitching and it obviously has not stopped today. I do not think the music industry is hurting too bad. Have you seen an episode of MTV cribs lately where they have musicians on there? The musicians don't seem like they are very poor (except for Redman, but nobody can predict Redman, that guy is crazy).

    When you have an indoor pool and an outdoor pool, I highly doubt you are hurting from money. If the musicians are getting enough money to afford that, just think of how much is going to the company seeing as the musician only takes a small cut of what the industry makes (that is, of course the musician gets endorsements from Nike and Wheaties and stuff).

    Seriously, after mp3's and torrents have faded out and the new technology has come into play, the music industry will bitch and moan again about how they are, again, on their last leg, but then we get to see the newest episode of MTV Cribs where artists show off their new Benz and Ferraris

    --
    The world is how you make it
  6. Re:In other news... by c0lo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously this isn't news, this is happening everyday to lots of people from lots of companies

    The fact that somebody else shits my underwear while I'm not looking is interesting to me.
    The fact that you keep changing your underwear and chose to not care who shits in it is is, indeed, of little relevance to me.

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  7. Lenz v. Universal by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    Or maybe sending take down notices to ALL videos on youtube is just a way to cover up the ones they REALLY want to take down.

    That wouldn't be the best strategy for Universal Music. It has previously been hit with a lawsuit in the Northern District of California, Lenz v. Universal , in which Judge Fogel held that OCILLA requires a copyright owner to make a fair use analysis in good faith before submitting a notice and that Universal may not have made such an analysis.

  8. Go and download it by vivin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Go to keepvid.com and download a copy of that video. If YouTube does take it down, we can always post it again (on another note, I can't seem to find part 2).

    The Internet Never Forgets.

    Also, Universal Music are douchebags, but what's new? The douchebaggery and the lies are so obvious that it's not even worth going into it.

    --
    Vivin Suresh Paliath
    http://vivin.net

    I like
    1. Re:Go and download it by Stregano · · Score: 2, Informative

      Epitaph

      --
      The world is how you make it
    2. Re:Go and download it by MoonBuggy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Specifying FM radio clout is somewhat unfair, as that mentality is tied into the idea that the style of marketing performed by the big labels is the only valid style of marketing. If you believe that, then you're pretty much tied to Universal or someone of their ilk - if you're lucky you'll get very rich with their help, and I certainly see the appeal of that, but signing one of those contracts is a major gamble. Depending on your connections and your style of music, that gamble may or may not have the best odds for you; sure, you'll be stuck playing by the rules of those asshats for a while even if it does pay off, but to be honest I'd probably take those terms myself if I thought they were going to throw enough resources my way to make me a major seller.

      The other option, also a gamble, is to promote yourself and/or employ a good PR firm. Viral videos (the kind people actually like to watch - think OK Go; although they may have had a major label behind them, the idea doesn't require one), gigs in the right places, low-cost high-volume sales on iTunes, and the right kind of image could be plenty to earn you the notoriety that leads to a very decent living. The maximum win probably isn't as high as that which you might get with the major labels, but the freedom is greater and the chance of some success, rather than either tens of millions or abject failure, may well be higher.

  9. In other news... by Infonaut · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... the Carriers Of Milk In Cities (COMIC) today lashed out at refrigerator manufacturers and cardboard container manufacturers for "killing the milk industry".

    Ferb Nordquist, the head of COMIC said in a statement that was hand carried to every major news outlet, "We, the milk carriers, bring milk to the masses. Without us, there would be no milk. The refrigerator and cardboard manufacturers are putting a stake in the heart of the milk industry. This is really the beginning of the end for milk."

    No cows were available for comment.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  10. Improper Takedown? by Courageous · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is perjury (a criminal act) to issue a DMCA takedown request when the requester is not the rights holder or their designated agent.

    So what content are they saying they are a rights holder/agent of?

    C//

    1. Re:Improper Takedown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is perjury (a criminal act) to issue a DMCA takedown request when the requester is not the rights holder or their designated agent.

      No. It's perjury if you respond to the request by saying falsely that you have the right to distribute it, but it's not perjury to issue a DMCA takedown request under false pretenses. The law was written this way for a reason. (Probably a few million reasons, on small pieces of paper.)

      (IANAL, of course.)

    2. Re:Improper Takedown? by mattack2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you already know this, but to clarify for others: Even when the shows/movies DO license the music, the license was often only for the original medium. That's why many shows (e.g. WKRP, 21 Jump Street) have messed up music on the DVD releases.

      My favorite counter-example: The last episode of "The Prisoner", which has a Beatles song in it. At the time, they got a perpetual license, that has AFAIK covered home video, DVD, streaming, etc., usage too.

    3. Re:Improper Takedown? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 5, Informative

      You have to attest, under penalty of perjury, that you own or hold rights to the work that you're reporting as infringing.

      That's not quite true, although the difference is subtle:

      US Code, Chapter 5, Title 17, Section 512(c):

      (3) ELEMENTS OF NOTIFICATION-

      (A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:

      (i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

      (ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.

      (iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.

      (iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.

      (v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

      (vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

      Note that the only part of the notice actually subject to penalty of perjury is "a statement .. that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed" (emphasis added). They can ask for material to be taken down which is not related in the slightest to the exclusive privilege they are claiming it infringes without committing perjury under the rules established here. Of course, there may be other consequences for filing false takedown notices.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    4. Re:Improper Takedown? by PCM2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My favorite counter-example: The last episode of "The Prisoner", which has a Beatles song in it. At the time, they got a perpetual license, that has AFAIK covered home video, DVD, streaming, etc., usage too.

      British dramas seem to have benefited from a lot more leniency in this area. The theme song to "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is an old Eagles song, for example, and I've seen "real" pop music showing up in all kinds of shows. I've always wondered whether their copyright laws/licenses are worded differently than those in the U.S.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
  11. More damning than that by rudy_wayne · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I recently came across an old copy of Modern Recording magazine from early 1981. There is an article about how cassette decks are evil and home taping is hurting the record industry and the RIAA commissioned a study that that they hoped to take to congress as proof that new laws were need.

    But a funny thing happened. The report was shelved when it revealed that people who owned home recording equipment spent 75% more money buying music than people who didn't own an evil cassette deck.

  12. If only we had Video and Youtube in 1910 by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Then you'd see first hand from the late Mortimer I. Luddite III with his frantic pleas to stop those infernal horseless carriages from destroying his buggy-whip business he made just days before being struck down and killed by a Model T going a whopping 10 miles an hour through the town square.
    Innovation and progress is only good so long as the established powers that be profit by it.

  13. Re:In other news... by clampolo · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's only funny until it happens to you

  14. The more things change... by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is always something that is putting the music industry on its "last leg". As technology advances, they just continue bitching and it obviously has not stopped today.

    And the retarded thing? Advancing technology makes them money.

    Consider the 90s, which they seem to conveniently peg as their baseline for normal. Putting their cries of poverty from today and the 80s together, they've been going out of business constantly from 1985 until now, except for the mid 90s. What happened then? The CD came out. And people replaced a helluvalot of vinyl and tapes with CDs. People did that because the product was significantly superior in nearly every way (with apologies to audiophiles who love vinyl).

    So what's different now? Well, they've been fighting digital distribution tooth and nail to combat privacy (ostensibly), preferring to stamp out piracy even if it means killing themselves. As a result they've made a lot less money than they could have, and have allowed a robust black market to blossom. That's bad for them, not just because of the lost revenue (let's concede they lose some money for the sake of argument), but they also lose control over distribution. This is completely different from their mistakes before.. Previously, people bootlegged tapes to make illegal tapes, but it was an inferior product to the legit copies, and probably made little dent in sales. Now, people can bootleg CDs to make digital copies, shifting media as well as creating a potentially superior product. The black market can now fill a market they've chosen not to compete in. Bad news for them.

    So what's the upshot? If they want to make money like in the 90s, they need to give people a reason to re-buy music. That will be very hard since the last iteration was digital and easily turned into other media - how do you improve on that? They need some way of adding actual value to the product that people bought or shared/stole. Otherwise, the level of sales growth seen now and in the 80s is the norm, and we shouldn't expect anything different.

    1. Re:The more things change... by grantek · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The cool thing is their greed is being eaten away from the other side as well - home recording, powerful computers/software, and the internet is making it easier and easier for artists to get a quality product to an audience, bypassing the "music industry" altogether - at least for recorded music.

      I don't think the **AA-type organizations have any coherent picture on what the future of media should be, other than "everyone should buy every release of the same shit over and over again".

    2. Re:The more things change... by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The cool thing is their greed is being eaten away from the other side as well - home recording, powerful computers/software, and the internet is making it easier and easier for artists to get a quality product to an audience, bypassing the "music industry" altogether - at least for recorded music.

      Yup. Less and less reason for them to exist. With cheaper production and voluntarily electing not to make digital distribution work correctly, the only thing they have left is marketing. If the indie artists ever figure out some means of grabbing mindshare - if some indie online music finding service ever becomes both popular and legal - the RIAA is even more screwed.

      I don't think the **AA-type organizations have any coherent picture on what the future of media should be, other than "everyone should buy every release of the same shit over and over again".

      Oh, that's exactly it. And then they use those few good years when everybody is re-buying music as their projection going forward, and if they don't hit numbers it's those derned pirates.

    3. Re:The more things change... by IICV · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So what's different now? Well, they've been fighting digital distribution tooth and nail to combat privacy (ostensibly), preferring to stamp out piracy even if it means killing themselves.

      Your rather humorous Freudian slip aside, I think this is something that is endemic to our culture.

      We are so incredibly terrified of the horrific thought of someone, somewhere, might possibly getting something they don't deserve that we spend an inordinate amount of time and effort hunting them down, and for no good (economical) reason.

      Yes, you do need some - maybe even a significant amount - of policing activities, in order to ensure that certain privileges aren't too abused. However, after a certain point (and this is a point I think we've far exceeded) the amount of policing required to ensure that one more person gets only what they are entitled to and nothing costs far more than the excess resources that person would have used. Even deterrence doesn't really matter - once it gets to the point that you can be sued for millions of dollars, who cares if you can be sued for millions + 1 dollars? Once it gets to the point where you can be put in jail for ten years, who really cares if you can be put in jail for 12?

      Basically, I think we've turned into a nation that is far too obsessed with crime and vengeance, when we should be concerned more with justice and silly things like actual, measured outcomes.

  15. Time to poorly execute a meta-joke. by icannotthinkofaname · · Score: 4, Funny

    the Streisand effect

    Well, that's just great. If you hadn't said anything, this phenomenon could have remained in relative obscurity. However, because you brought it up, now everyone's gonna know about the Streisand effect. Way to go.

    --
    Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
    1. Re:Time to poorly execute a meta-joke. by enderjsv · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're right! My mistake. Let's try to suppress it. That should work.

  16. Re:hmm by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Informative

    Radio is canned music. You cant ask the radio disc jockey to change the key, because you are a baritone instead of a tenor.

    That is what OP meant by "Live" music. That it is played live, by a living person, for you, in real time. And yes, the player piano did a grand job of putting corner store pianists out of business. By the same token, the tractor put many farm hands out of business. Technology does that. It reduces the amount of labor invested, and makes things easier; the downside is that it also puts people out of work in the process-- the people that did the jobs the technology replaced. Computers put whole accounting firms under, or at least resulted in huge reductions in the numbers of humans working for those firms.

    The tired "Buggy whip" trope used on /. is very apt here.

  17. Mirrors by boarder8925 · · Score: 5, Informative
    I managed to find a copy of the second part of the video, combined the first and second parts, and put the video online again:
    1. FileFront
    2. DivShare

    Download and mirror!

  18. Re:so far so good by mysidia · · Score: 2, Informative

    I assume 2020 Report on music video 1980 - Part 2 of 2 must be what they wanted to take down.

  19. Re:In other news... by shermo · · Score: 2, Funny

    This would make more sense if you put the missing N back on the end of your username.

    --
    Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
  20. Re:hmm by xclr8r · · Score: 2, Informative

    I invite you to come visit Austin or Denton where the live music scene in restaurants is well and alive

    --
    Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
  21. I wonder how 20/20 is taking this by ericvids · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As they say, hindsight is ... *gets shot*

    (Okay, the recording industry could be right... they claimed back then that "something MUST be done", but they never claimed that something "is NOT currently being done". After all, thirty years later, we now have all these stupid copyright laws...)

    --
    Pet peeve: Profane people propagating perfunctory pedantry.
  22. The REAL reason for the takedown... by Dahamma · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...was to cover up the HORRIBLE taste in clothing of all of the record execs in 1980. Just wow.

  23. Re:hmm by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 2, Funny

    The little musicians in my radio suck lately. They have lost all talent and play the same crap over and over and over...

    I suggest this 3 part plan: 1. Buy a new radio.
    2. Drop old radio into a lake or river while the new radio watches.
    3. Explain to the new radio that if it's musicians lose all talent and play the same crap over and over the same thing will happen to it.

    --
    If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?